, 48 hours of history on c-span3. thanks for being with us today. the house is coming in and just a minute and it will be looking at broadband internet access and the rates that are charged for that. [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2016] rayer will be offered by our chaplain, father conroifment -- conroy. chaplain conroy: let us pray. gracious and merciful god, we give you thanks for giving us another day. you bring forth blessings from just deeds. listen to our prayers for the members of this people's house. give them the wisdom to meditate upon your revelation, your law. help them find confidence in your love, especially in times of difficult. -- difficulty. may their efforts reflect the mindset and gracious manner revealed in your loving commands, and may their work contain the depth of justice and the expense of embrace of

human goodness that you reveal to your people. may all that is done this day be for your greater honor and glory. men. the speaker: the chair has examined the journal of the last day's proceedings and announces to the house his approval thereof. pursuant to clause 1 of rule 1, the journal stands approved. the pledge of allegiance will be led by the gentleman from california, mr. lowenthal. mr. lowenthal: i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the speaker: the chair will entertain up to five request for one-minute speeches on each side of the aisle. for what purpose does the gentleman from new york seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized. >> mr. speaker, i rise today to support the advocacy efforts of the mcmahon-ryan child advocacy

center. a wonderful and renowned central new york organization dedicated to ending child abuse through intervention and education. this month mcmahon-ryan is launching its go blue for kids campaign to help end child abuse. go blue for kids is the first of its kind collaboration among five central new york health care leaders who are focused on raising awareness about child abuse prevention. in recognition of april being national child abuse prevention awareness month, myself and hundreds of my constituents will be wearing blue, painting a blue pinwheel, or attending local events to raise awareness about child abuse prevention. as a former federal prosecutor i'm all too aware that much needs to be done to guarantee safe and happy upbringing for our american youths. mr. katko: i ask my colleagues to join me and the 24th district of new york to join the go blue for kids campaign. i commend them for their excellent work that they do in our community and continue to support their efforts to end

child abuse. thank you, mr. speaker. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? mr. lowenthal: i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. lowenthal: thank you, mr. speaker. this week the cambodian american community of long beach will observe remembrance day commemorating 41 years since the end of the cambodian genocide. this horrific event in which the khmer rouge killed approximately 1.7 million cambodians from all walks of life devastated cambodia for years, depriving the country of a generation of its best and its brightest. and leaving a lifetime of trauma for cambodians living in the united states and around the world.

i have introduced house resolution 436, along with a dozen of my colleagues to ensure that we never forget the unspeakable horrors of the genocide, and we honor the memories of many of its victims. today i ask my colleagues and people across this country to join us in coming together to remember the cambodian genocide, to commemorate the almost two million people who were killed. thank you. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from nevada seek recognition? >> address the house for one minute. revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. >> mr. speaker, i rise today in advance of tax day to address the u.s. tax code and its impact on our economy. there's no escaping the fact that our tax code is written in a manner that is burdensome to individuals. it is complex, unruly.

however i want to speak briefly about the dire effects it has on small businesses. over 28 million small businesses in this country are the true economic drivers. as the tax issues continue to change, to plague small businesses, we have a major problem. instead of concentrating on servicing their business customers, growing their company, or creating jobs, they are overwhelmed with tax provision changes. this is a never-ending story. when that small business back in nevada diverts efforts and resources to deal with tax compliance issues, they are not focusing on why they are in business. they need a tax code that is simpler, fairer, and flatter. as the debate surrounding tax reform continues, let's make sure that our tax code doesn't impact job creation. with that i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from tennessee seek recognition? >> to address the house for one minute.

the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the gentleman is recognized. mr. cohen: thank you, mr. speaker. today is jackie robinson day. declared such by major league baseball, but should be declared such by the united states of america. in 1947 on april 15, jackie robinson broke the color barrier. for 80-some odd years there were no african-american players in the major leagues. branch ricky put jackie robinson on the dodgers, brooklyn dodgers, and baseball became integrated and truly became america's national pastime. today major league baseball players will all wear number 42, a number retired and allowed to be worn only on this day in honor of jackie robinson on that occasion of integrating major league baseball. jackie robinson was a great american and a great athlete. lettered in four sports at ucla. he was a great major league player with the brooklyn dodgers and honored by being inducted into the hall of fame.

there's a jackie robinson foundation today that gives young people scholarships to go to college and do good deeds. he was very much interested in moving america forward in civil rights and did all he could. i was fortunate to travel to cuba with the president and met his wife, his widow, rachel, and daughter, sharon, who gave me a button, this is a replica of it, designating april 15 as jackie robinson day. i think we should think about his contributions to america and what we can make to america to make us a more perfect union. thank you, jackie robinson, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, request unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. thompson: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, i rise today to recognize the 175th anniversary of porter township, clinton county, located in pennsylvania's 5th congressional district, founded in 1841 and named for the

current governor at the time, david porter. the township was settled by scotch iron pioneers and known in its early days for the washington ironworks built in 1809 and operated until 1878. like so much of clinton county, pennsylvania's 5th congressional district, it is also dependent on the timber industry. to this day the timber industry remains vital, contributing an estimated $90 million per year to the county's economy. at 175 years old, porter county is older than 24 states. this is indeed a milestone to celebrate. the celebration begins this weekend on saturday with an opening ceremony that will include guest speakers and an ice cream social. further events are planned through the end of the year clueing a 5-k color walk run and tours of township farms. congratulations to the residents of porter township on this huge milestone. thank you, mr. speaker. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the

gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from washington seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. >> thanks, mr. speaker. at the end of last year congress put aside political grandstanding and actually made some progress, a budget agreement that was supposed to be a framework for two years. listen, it wasn't a perfect agreement, but it kept us from going off a cliff. it did some good for the folks we represent. it setaside much of the damaging across the board cuts, it gave federal agencies and businesses and workers some kernt and some predictibility. mr. kilmer: congress simply passing a budget at this point is like a dog playing the piano. the song pay not sound perfect but it's a dog playing the piano. congress passed a budget. here we go again. to stand here we once again don't have an annual budget. i struggle to explain to my constituents how congress is once again snatching defeat from the claws of victory. how this dysfunction remains the norm. the solution here is simple. let's stick to the compromise

made a few months ago. let's stick with what a majority of the house and senate actually backed just a few months ago. let's avoid shutdowns and dysfunction and get to work on moving this economy and this congress forward. thank you, mr. speaker. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? >> seek unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. lamalfa: thank you, mr. speaker. this week the ago ago urel -- subcommittee on commodities held a hearing and will hold more on the condition of the general farm economy. we see prices of commodities going down extremely from a identify to just a couple years ago. indeed, farm income is down approximately 56% according to usda. steps need to be taken to ensure stability in the ag economy because it's too large of an export for -- market for us and too much of the stability of the u.s. food

prices as well as the economy in rural america for it to go wanting. we need to have a type of house that helps keep business in america doing well. it isn't just devising policy here in washington, d.c., but not making a regulatory burden and causing the prices of inputs to continue to spiral upward as we watch farm price at the gate go down. we need to do much more to have a friendly atmosphere for business, that includes agriculture in this country. we hope to come up with solutions as we put the spotlight in the ag committee in the coming weeks. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. smith: mr. speaker, a recent study shows the immigrant population, both legal and illegal, has grown to record levels now surpassing 15% in 1/3 of the states.

in six states california, florida, nevada, new jersey, new york, and texas the population of immigrants and their children is over 25%. report by the center for immigration studies found that since 1970 the number of immigrants and their children has increased six times faster than the overall population. congress needs to analyze these facts as it considers assimilation, cost of government services, and the impact immigration has on jobs and the economy. america has the most generous immigration system in the world. however, our immigration policies must put the interest of american workers and taxpayers first. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from oregon seek recognition? mr. walden: mr. speaker, i ask 2666 now bring up h.r.

and that i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous material on h.r. 2666. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. pursuant to house resolution 672 and rule 18, the chair declares the house in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for the consideration of h.r. 2666. the chair appoints the gentleman from tennessee, mr. duncan, to preside over the ommittee of the whole. the chair: the house is in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for the consideration of h.r. 2666 which the clerk will report by title. the clerk: a bill to prohibit the federal communications commission from regulating rates charged for broadband internet access service. the chair: pursuant to the

rule, the bill is considered as read the first time. the gentleman from oregon, mr. walden, and the gentlewoman from california, ms. eshoo, each will control 30 minutes. the chair now recognizes the gentleman from oregon. mr. walden: thank you very much, mr. chairman. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for such time. mr. walden: mr. chairman, i rise in support of h.r. 2666. this is the no rate regulation of broadband internet access act. from the first indication of the federal communications commission intended to reclassify broadband internet access service as a title 2 service, subject to utility, imagine that, utility regulation, the subcommittee on communications and technology has made it a priority to ensure that the f.c.c. bureaucracy never has the authority to actually get in and then micromanage and regulate rates. the internet is a model of innovation, flourishing under decades of light touch or no touch regulation. that's how it's flourished, mr.

chairman. in recent years, as the f.c.c. has repeatedly attempted to regulate the management of internet traffic, the potential reach of those regulations has grown, prompting concerns that the f.c.c. would retreat to the world of rate regulation that typified the monopoly telephone era. . the f.c.c. announced in early 2015, mr. chairman, that it would reclassify the internet as a ue title-style service as -- utility-style service, rules that are challenged in the courts, i might add. i will address the most common attacks against this legislation that we are going to attempt to quote-unquote gut the net neutrality rules. that simply is not the case. we are supportive of clear, bright line rules of the road for i.s.p.'s and the way they treat internet traffic. in fact, last year i released a

discussion draft bill along with chairman upton and senator thune that would codify those very rules. what we don't support is the use of outdated, ill-suited regulations to achieve those goals. this bill isn't intended to touch the net neutrality rules. in fact, an amendment i offered up in committee markup goes so far to make an explicit exemption to make sure it would not impact the f.c.c.'s work to ban prioritization. what this bill does is prohibit the f.c.c. from regulated the amount charged to a consumer by an i.s.b. for provision of a broadband service, a fact made clear by our definitions. there's another objection, mr. chairman, we heard repeatedly and that is the f.c.c. chosen to forebear in title 2 in that the chairman of the f.c.c. had promised not to regulate rates anyway. so this bill is really unnecessary. again, this is simply not the case.

the f.c.c. did forebear from various sections from title 2 but the authority to regulate rates through enforcement is still very much on the table. in addition, while chairman wheeler did promise before our subcommittee and multiple other committees before the congress that he would not regulate rates, there was nothing to bind him or his successors to that commitment. the need for the certainty of a statutory ban on rate regulation became even clearer a few weeks ago when the bill's sponsor, representative kinzinger, asked the chairman of the f.c.c., chairman wheeler, whether he believed the f.c.c. should have the authority to regulate rates. chairman wheeler's response, yes, sir, quote-unquote. well, given the philosophy of the chairman himself, it's clearly more pressing than ever that this bill becomes law. the f.c.c. cannot and should not be able to regulate the rates charged by i.s.p.'s to

their customers. this sort of regulatory overhang clouds the decisionmaking of providers and dissuedes them from offering innovative, pro-consumer pricing plans and service offerings less the commission comes back after the fact and penalize them. take t-mobile service as a prime example. consumers are able to access video offered by any participant in the program without the data counting toward their monthly usage limits or charges. edge providers win because their content is viewed more often. the service provider wins because they actually attract more customers. it's called the marketplace. it's innovation in the market prays responding to what con-- marketplace responding to what consumers want. the consumers win because they content. o access i'm not here to advocate one

company over another. this is what entrepreneurship is all about. under the opaque rules of the f.c.c., t-mobile had no way of knowing whether this sort of binge on pricing scheme would violate the commission's rules. they didn't know. while t-mobile has taken this risk, many providers may choose not to do so ultimately depriving customers of choices they otherwise would have. you see, everybody's a little afraid, does this chairman or the next chairman come back after the fact and say, well, you know, that's really not something we think is too dandy to do so we're going to penalize you. it's called after the fact regulation. so it's an unfortunate core lear to this chapter in internet history, the same kind of flip-flop we're concerned on rate regulation is exactly what we've seen is expected. you see, chairman wheeler was quote-unquote ok with it until he decided maybe not. as a former business owner myself, i can tell you can't

make business decisions based on a hope and a prayer of your regulator. i was actually regulated by the f.c.c. i knew the rules. i followed them. they were clear. they were bright line. in an incredibly open marketplace, can you imagine the lack of clarity and the ability to go back after the fact and in affect rate regulate? this will stifle competition, innovation and consumer choice. finally, i'd like to address charges that this bill would leave customers helpless overcharged or worse by i.s.p.'s. we'd all share that concern. we don't want that. and this bill provides protection. the notion that the f.c.c., an agency that didn't have authority over internet provider rates until last year -- until last year -- is the only line of defense between customers and fraud is frankly silly. it's a silly claim. customers have gotten along just fine without the aid of the f.c.c. regulating rates. and this notion that the f.c.c.

is the only cop on the beat for consumers would come as a surprise, real surprise to many states' attorneys general and consumer advocates across the nation. all those protections, fraud, abuse, still prevails out there. this bill is a carefully tailored piece of legislation that's targeted one thing, one thing, mr. chairman, that's unnecessary bureaucratic washington-based rate regulation. we use the most narrow definition inserted rules of construction and made specific exemptions all in an attempt to address the concerns that were raised by the witnesses in our hearings that we held, mr. chairman, members at markup and others who participated in the process. we listened to all of those voices say, how do we make it right, how do we make it narrow to a bureaucracy that wants to expand and grow and micromanage and rate regulate? we sought unintended consequences unlike the f.c.c.

who have the broad and furthest reaching scope. imagine that, mr. chairman, from a bureaucracy that writes rules they would write rules that are broadly written so they have more power for themselves. in fact, many of the changes we made to the bill at full committee markup were inspired by an amendment offered by representative matsui of california, drawing on her suggested changes, we amended the bill to be a more targeted draft. felt it would not have the prohibition this bill narrowly calls for. not just before the fact tariffing where they say you can charge $7, that's it, that would be tariffing after the fact. but after the fact and say, oh, by the way, whatever you're charged, we think it was too much or too little or whatever. well, i'm disappointed many of my colleagues across the aisle

can't support this bill. it wasn't for lack of trying or lack of hearings or modifying our underlying text. i nonetheless strongly believe this is an essential step in having a vibrant internet ecosystem that prompts and promotes new jobs and investment like no other service. the last thing we want to throw on there is the cold water of washington bureaucracy after the fact regulation that will stifle competition and innovation that is so benefited consumers in this great internet economy which we find ourselves. with that, mr. chairman, i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from oregon reserves the balance of his time. the gentlewoman from california is recognized. ms. eshoo: good morning, mr. speaker. rise in opposition to h.r. 2666, and i yield myself such time as i may consume.

the chair: the gentlelady is recognized is recognized. ms. eshoo: thank you, mr. speaker. today we're debating a bill that the majority has tiled the no rate regulation of broadband internet access act. t sounds tariff. -- it sounds terrific. on the surface, it does something we both support this. we both support this and what we support is very clear. prevent the f.c.c. from setting the monthly rate that customers pay for internet access service , but in reality this bill is about undermining the f.c.c.'s authority to protect consumers and ensure a free and open internet for all. i listened very carefully to the chairman, whom i respect, who's my friend, talking about innovation, talking about what

the effects that that has on so much that we do. i represent the innovation capital of our country and the world, silicon valley, so i think that i understand something about innovation and the ingredients that make it work. as the ranking member of the subcommittee, i have made it very clear that i do not support setting rates for customers to pay on internet access nor do any of my democratic colleagues on the committee. in fact, and the chairman left this out, the chairman left this out. in fact, during the subcommittee and full committee markup of this bill, i offered an air-tight one-page amendment right here, right here, one-page amendment to codify that the f.c.c. will permanently forebear from setting the rates that customers pay for internet

access. it is air tight. it's as clear as a bell, but it was rejected twice. now, why would the majority reject exactly what they say they are seeking? it's a good question. it's a rhetorical question but it should be raised. i think it's because this bill is more about than the f.c.c. setting the rates that customers pay for internet access. the f.c.c. is the cop on the beat in the communications marketplace. that means the f.c.c. has the responsibility to keep watch over the companies that provide our cell phone, cable and internet services to ensure that everyone is treated fairly , and i think in the absence of the following, not one consumer organization in the country

supports the bill that's on the floor because it's overly broad. the definition of rate regulation in this bill leaves the door open for courts to strike down the f.c.c.'s authority to protect consumers and act in the public interest that they interpret any of its actions as impacting broadband internet rates. that's what this bill does. that's what we object to. what the -- ect to essentially what the title of the bill, no rate regulation of broadband internet access. these protections include prohibiting internet service providers, i.s.p.'s, from capping the amount of data that customers can use, outlawing pay for privacy agreements where consumers have to pay fees to avoid having their data collected and sold to thirt parties, en-- third parties,

enforcing net neutrality and reviewing mergers that increase consolidation and limit choice in the broadband internet market. and as i said a moment ago, there's no wonder this bill is opposed by over 70 public interest groups, including the national hispanic media coalition, the consumer federation of america and the national consumer law center. and the white house has said that it will veto the bill. we could have come here with the very simple -- with a very simple bill that essentially was what my amendment stated, no rate regulation, but that wasn't -- that's what the majority says they're for but the bill goes way beyond that. i want to make it clear to my colleagues and to the american people that may be tuned into this debate. this bill in its broadness is an attack on consumers and an attack on the f.c.c.'s net

neutrality rules. now, that's not a surprise because the majority has never supported that, and that's why i urge my colleagues to oppose h.r. 2666, and i reserve the balance of my time. i'd also like to ask, mr. speaker, for unanimous consent that three letters from consumer organizations be placed in the record. the chair: that request will be covered by general leave, and the gentlewoman from california reserves the balance of her time. the gentleman from oregon is recognized. mr. walden: mr. chairman, it's now my honor to recognize the gentlelady from tennessee, the vice chairman of the full energy and commerce committee and a very important member of our subcommittee, mrs. blackburn. the chair: the gentlewoman from tennessee is recognized for how much? two minutes. mrs. blackburn: thank you, mr. chairman. and i appreciate the opportunity to come to the floor today and stand in support of this bill. it is the right step, and the gentlelady from california references the amendment that

she had wanted but her amendment was not exactly what that bill is, and what we are seeking to do is to encourage the f.c.c. to make good on the promise that they have made. even chairman wheeler, we have in march, 2015, he was speaking at the mobile world conference in barcelona. he was talking about net neutrality and rules and regulations and he said, this is not regulating the internet. regulating the internet is rate regulation which we don't do. . whoops. they do. that's what they are trying to do. there is a difference in what the gentlelady was seeking to do in committee, not have tariffs or regulations, but if they had done it we would have to get into a process of trying to undo. that's what people don't like.

they don't like that kind of mess. what they want is something very explicit. that is what mr. kin singer's bill does -- kinzinger's bill does. it says f.c.c., you cannot, you shall not, you will not do rate regulation. it is not what the american people want to see. it is what the f.c.c. has promised they will not do. so what we are doing is helping a federal agency keep their word and keep their promise and not get in to rate regulation. of course we all know that what they would like to do is regulate the internet so they can tax the internet. so they can then come in and set all the rates. so they can then come in and assign priority and value to content. it is a commerce issue. it is a free speech issue.

it is an issue for the american people who want to make certain that the information service they have known and appreciated and utilize every day in the virtual marketplace is not going to be regulated by a federal government agency. i yield back. the chair: the gentlewoman from tennessee yields back the balance of her time. the gentlewoman from california is recognized. ms. eshoo: thank you, mr. speaker. i would note that the f.c.c. chairman is not a member of congress. it is only congress that can write a statute, and the amendment that i offered codified, codified that there would be no rate regulation of the internet. i now would like to yield three minutes to the distinguished ranking member of the full committee, mr. pallone of new jersey. the chair: the gentleman from new jersey is recognized for three minutes. mr. pallone: thank you. i want to thank my colleague from california, the ranking

member of our subcommittee. today we are considering a deceptively simple bill, h.r. 2666. the bill states that the f.c.c. may not regulate rates for broadband internet access service, but i urge members on both sides of the aisle to not fall for this rhetoric and misinformation. just because this bill is short in length does not mean it is narrow in scope. it is designed to gut the f.c.c. because as experts have pointed out, the definitions in the bill for rate regulation could mean almost anything. while the republicans claim that they intend the bill to be narrow, we have heard over and over that their draft would swallow vast sections of the communications act. most notably the bill could undermine the f.c.c.'s ability to protect could be sumers -- consumers. democrats repeatedly offered to help improve this bill, but make no mistake there was not an negotiation. we offered suggestions but were rebuffed time and again. in fact, we raised concerns

from the beginning that the original bill failed to define rate regulation. then at the 11th hour the republicans provided their own take it or leave it definition with no democratic input. and this is not negotiating. the result of this one-sided conversation is the definition of rate regulation that simply confirms our worst fears. the definition is so broad that it effectively would gut the agency. now, we have said repeatedly we do not want the f.c.c. to set rates, but we can't support a bill that undermines the f.c.c.'s core mission. we can't support a bill that prevents the agency from acting in the interest of the public. we can't support a bill that prevents the agency from protecting consumers from discriminatory practice. and we certainly cannot support a bill that undercuts the f.c.c.'s net neutrality rules. the republicans have rebuffed all our efforts to narrow h.r. 2666 so the consumers are not harmed. if we are all serious about passing a narrow bill

accomplishing these goals would not be hard. our collective interest should be aligned. that clearly is not the intent of my republican colleagues. so i urge members to cast a vote against h.r. 2666. i yield back. thank you, mr. speaker. the chair: the gentleman from new jersey nng yields back the balance of his time of the the gentleman from oregon is recognized. mr. walden: may inquire you how much time each side has? the chair: the majority leader has 19 minutes remaining. the minority has 22 1/2 minutes remaining. mr. walden: at this point, mr. chairman, i would recognize the author of this legislation, very distinguished member of our subcommittee on telecommunications and great patriot for our country, mr. kinzinger of illinois. the chair: for how much? mr. walden: two minutes. the chair: the gentleman from illinois is recognized for two minutes. mr. kinzinger: thank you, mr. chairman. thank you to the committee. thank you to the other side of the aisle and even though this is something that we are going to put through and would love to have a lot more support from the other side of the aisle.

we do appreciate the working relationship. let me just say, this is, in my mind, very simple. the f.c.c. when they, in essence, chose to reclassify broadband internet access service as a common carrier, that gave them the classification, ability to regulate rates of private companies. and understanding this it was a concern as we looked around and said, well, we want to make sure the f.c.c. doesn't have the power to regulate the rates charged for internet access. if you look back in the history of this country and really what technology and what the internet has been able to do for jobs and for economic growth and for everything along that line, it's all been because it's free of government regulations. let as you put this into law that the f.c.c. shouldn't have the authority. in a couple hearings the chairman wheeler, chairman of the f.c.c., was asked, do you believe you should have the right or the ability to regulate the rates charged for broadband access?

he said no. i forebear that. in fact, i asked the chairman, what if we put into law a simple statement that said the f.c.c. shouldn't have that authority. i'm in basically is what he said. well, we now over the next year kind of run into some more issues. and all of a sudden three weeks ago i asked the chairman the same question again and he admits that actually the f.c.c. should have the ability to regulate broadband internet access. this is congress simply doing its job. congress' job is to determine what authority the f.c.c. should and should not have. that's what we were invented for. that's what we were created for to determine those laws and those rules. all we are doing is taking back a little bit of power from the f.c.c. and saying, look, let's keep the internet free market. let's keep broadband free market. congress is going to have its say in this. i hope the other side of the aisle and my colleagues join me in supporting this measure. it's the right thing for our country. and it's a great first step in preserving the internet as free

for future generations. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentlewoman from california is recognized. ms. eshoo: thank you, mr. speaker. i'd like to yield four minutes to the distinguished gentleman from kentucky and just an outstanding member of the committee from kentucky, mr. yarmuth. the chair: the gentleman from kentucky is recognized for four minutes. mr. yarmuth: thank you, mr. chairman. i thank the gentlelady for yielding. as i said on wednesday during debate on the rule, the bill before us today is a vague solution in search of a nonexistent problem. while we all share concerns about the idea of broadband, it net rate regulation, chairman wheeler has made it absolutely clear that the f.c.c. will not seek to regulate those rates. since this bill is before the house anyway, i thought i would offer an amendment that would address an actual problem that can be fixed by the f.c.c. section 317 of the communications act of 1934

requires broadcasters to disclose the true identity of political advertising sponsors. the f.c.c. currently relies on an outdated 1979 staff interpretation of the law that does not account for the dramatic changes that have taken place in our campaign system over the last six years. including the citizens united and mccutcheon decisions. but the rule makes sense. the american people ought to know who is actually trying to influence their votes. unfortunately, sponsors in today's world don't indicate who is actually paying for the add. no. we get sponsors like americans for kittens and puppies. that's not very helpful in disclosing to the american people who is trying to influence them. it would be, for instance, if somebody ran an ad for -- promoting sugarred soft drinks, and instead of coca-cola or pepsi being the actual people

paying for the ad, you would have the advertising agency. this ad sponsored by owingle bye or mccann-erickson. not very helpful to the american people. this has resulted in a major loophole in which special interest and wealthy donors can anonymously spend limitedless amounts of money to influence the outcomes of our elections. that is not what congress intended. despite having the authority to do so, the f.c.c. has refused to take action to close this loophole, my amendment by restating the original constitutional intent, would have sent a message to the f.c.c. that it is time to october. we all know how much secret money has flooded or politics. weakened accountability in government. and made it harder for voters to develop a true opinion of the individuals they will send to congress to represent them. my amendment would have helped to change that and hopefully begin to restore a minimum level of honesty in our electoral system of the the amendment was germane, within the rules of this body, and the

solution it provided was well within the authority of the f.c.c. most importantly an overwhelming majority of americans, republicans, democrats, and independents, want us to do this. they want us to reform and fix our broken campaign finance system. unfortunately, republicans on the rules committee voted against the interest of the majority of americans and blocked my amendment from coming to the floor. while they killed my amendment, i'm glad the amendment offered by my colleague, mr. lujan, will be up for consideration today. it will give us a chance to debate the lack of disclosure and transparency in campaign ads and unlike the underlying bill, it offers a specific solution to a real problem. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from kentucky yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from oregon is recognized. mr. walden: thank you, mr. chairman. i now recognize another terrific member of our subcommittee on communications and technology, the gentleman from new jersey, mr. lance, for one minute. the chair: the gentleman from new jersey is recognized for one minute. mr. lance: thank you, mr.

speaker. as a member of the telecom subcommittee, i rise in strong support of mr. kin singer's bill. the inter-- kinzinger's bill. the internet has changed the economy and how every one of us lives daily lifmente it is a great equalizer, providing open platform to expand expression and free speech. as much as any invention in history. but some un-elected officials here in washington are eager to regulate it and some in office across the country are eager to tax it. we must prevent both. the prosperity and opportunity we have come to know from the internet will be compromised if internet access becomes another victim of an overwaning governmental agentcy. the apps on your mobile phone and online accounts, social sphere, and personal and professional information come not from the permission of un-elected officials but from the work of innovators who have invented this 21st century technology. they must remain empowered to

continue their innovation. we cannot allow the government a foothold for internet control. i strongly support h.r. 2666. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the the gentlewoman from california is recognized. ms. eshoo: thank you, mr. speaker. i now would like to recognize the gentleman from vermont, mr. welch, a wonderful and important member of the subcommittee. how much time do you need? three minutes. the chair: the gentleman from vermont is recognized for three minutes. mr. welch: thank you, mr. speaker. i thank my ranking member on the telecom committee and the chair of the committee. there's two questions here. first is net neutrality. one of the biggest decisions that the f.c.c. made was to protect net neutrality. before they issued their order, they had literally millions of comments from people all across

this country in your district and in mine, urging that the net neutrality be maintained and preserved. and the chairman and the f.c.c. did that with their order. now, that has raised some questions as to whether the assertion of f.c.c. authority is going to result in micromanaging through regulation. that would be a legitimate concern if it were a concern. but the chairman has made it extremely clear that he has no intention whatsoever of doing any kind of rate regulation under title 2. he's not going to do it. it hasn't been done. o this bill, which is going to "prohibit rate regulation" has some significant and potentially very dangerous consequences for two things -- net neutrality and protection

of consumers. we need a f.c.c. that is going to be there to protect consumers against some potentially bad practices like cramming or overbilling. things that traditionally the f.c.c. has done as the agency that is protecting consumers gainst bad practices. the reason why many experts believe this bill would result in that happening is because there is no definition of rate regulation. this is' none. and the burden -- there is none. and the burden on legislators when we propose something is to be clear and specific to what it is that's being proposed. and there is no definition whatsoever in this bill about rate regulation. this bill is founded on an apprehension that something bad will happen, but it depiffs an undefined answer to -- but it

fiffs an undefined answer to -- but it gives an undefined answer to it. you have a bill that's playing fear on the unknown. my preference would be for us to not pass this bill, not endanger the authority of the f.c.c. to take steps that help consumers in your district and in my district and to focus where we should be focusing, in my view, on steps we can take to improve broadband access and speeds, particularly for rural areas, rural vermonters. there's a common goal that we have on our committee to try to get the broadband out and deployed at higher speeds in all of our areas, particularly the rural areas that are in jeopardy. so i would urge my colleagues to vote no and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the time of the gentleman from vermont has

expired. the gentleman from oregon is recognized. mr. walden: mr. speaker, before i yield to my colleague, mr. shimkus, i'd like to point out for the record on page 4 of the bill, h.r. 2666, is -- on line 7 is a definition of broadband internet access service. we also have definitions of rate, we have definitions of regulation all spelled out in the bill and very specific to the issue of cramming and illegal actions on truth in billing and all, those are also called for in the bill. he may be looking at an old draft of the bill or something, but it's not the legislation before us. we do define what rate regulation is. we do make sure the f.c.c. part 64, to enforce title 7. it's lines 18-20 of the bill. those things were addressed in the legislation that's now

before the house. with that, mr. chairman, i recognize mr. shimkus for two minutes. the chair: the gentleman from illinois is recognized for two minutes. mr. shimkus: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend, mr. chairman. the chair: without objection, so ordered. mr. shimkus: thank you, mr. chairman. it actually was great to follow my colleague from vermont who's a thoughtful individual. raises always good questions and really is open to debate. nd he stumbles on the truth in this. this does have an issue of net neutrality and our problem has always been, we now have a federal agency imposing what there was no need or desire by many of us believe to fix. and so now, now we're trying to make sure this federal agency doesn't kill the goose that laid the golden egg, right? there is a fear. he was correct in also saying there is a fear. so how do you ease that fear?

you enshrine into law the promises made by the administration and by the chairman of the f.c.c.. you take away the fear. it's not like, well, maybe, this is what he said but maybe he'll do this. just codify it. then we know what the law is. then everyone who gets -- brings it to litigation says here's a black and white law. of course we also have trouble with the courts. we would hope the courts would read the black and white language of the law and then rule that way, but all we're troig to do is -- trying to do is trust but verify. because what we -- what we see is that the net neutrality debate was a fix seeking a problem. there was no problem. sight can stand in our

and say we haven't advanced by this new technological age and that we need more government to help cause it to flourish more. and so we are afraid of a federal agency. we are afraid that the f.c.c. has gone too far. we need to shrine this into law. everybody knows the ground rules, and that's all my colleague, mr. kinzinger, is trying to do and i ask my colleagues to support it and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentlewoman from california is recognized. ms. eshoo: mr. speaker, i'll reserve. the chair: the gentlewoman from california reserves the balance of her time. the gentleman from oregon is recognized. mr. walden: mr. chairman, can i get an update on time remaining on each side? the chair: the gentleman from oregon has 13 minutes remaining. the gentlewoman from california has 16 1/2 minutes remaining. mr. walden: thank you, mr. chairman. with that i yield a minute to the distinguished gentleman from north dakota, who has an incredible background in rate

regulation and the commission there and is a terrific member of our subcommittee, mr. cramer. the chair: the gentleman from north dakota is recognized for one minute. mr. cramer: thank you, mr. chairman. mr. chairman, as the chairman said, i served 10 years as a title 2 rate regulator on the north dakota commission. i know what rate regulation looks like and the internet is not an appropriate vehicle or medium for this type of regulation. the internet is not a monopoly telephone company. it is not a monopoly electric or gas utility. the internet is a dynamic, competitive innovator and even the threat of this type of regulation stiffles that innovation and we don't want that to happen. i want to address the amendment that was referred to by the ranking member of the subcommittee who i have great respect for, but she referred to the term permanent fore barnes. that -- forbearance. that is a contradiction in

terms. it is by definition temporary. he who has the authority to forbear has the authority to un forbear. that's why it was not adequate to this bill. this bill simply codifies that which the president of the united states and the chairman of the federal communications commission promised, to not regulate rates. if they promise to do it, god bless them, but we don't know that the next chairman and the next president will live up to that promise. this law ensures that that promise is kept by codifying it and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. does the gentlewoman from alifornia continue to reserve? the gentlewoman from california continues to reserve. the gentleman from oregon is recognized. mr. walden: thank you, mr. chairman. with that i'd yield one minute to the gentleman from california, the distinguished majority leader of the united states house of representatives, mr. mccarthy. the chair: the majority leader is recognized. mr. mccarthy: well, i thank the gentleman for yielding.

mr. chairman, the biggest goal of the innovation initiative is to bring government into the modern age, making the policies that come out of washington reflect and adapt to the world today. now, what has shaped our world more in the 21st century than the internet? education, commerce, communication, information, everything in our lives has changed because of the internet. how did the internet become something so important, so useful and so widespread? government left it alone. it expanded to reach and help billions because bureaucrats weren't allowed to micromanage it. you know, i remember hearing this from a.l.o. founder steve case. it was back in 1985. he said, only 3% of the people were online and for an average of just one hour a week. today, the internet has reached about 40% of the world. that's an amazing growth.

unfortunately, the freedom that led to this amazing success is that risk. right now it's an open question whether the f.c.c. can regulate internet rates, and congress needs to clarify that. it has no authority to do so, because if the f.c.c. were to regulate rates, it could harm every american across the country that has a wi-fi connection by imposing artificial restraints on their plans and service options. it would stop needed investment in expanding and improving the internet, and it would block innovation we depend on to create better and faster internet. regulating rates means bureaucrats think they can manage the internet better than the private sector which has already brought fast and affordable connections to millions across the country. w, i know the f.c.c. and president obama promised it wouldn't regulate internet broadband rates from their

office in washington and that's a good thing, but that doesn't mean i'm not concerned. i don't know about you, mr. chairman, but after seven years of broken promises, i have a hard time trusting this administration will follow through. so today we're voting to hold the administration to its word. they promise not to regulate the rates. this legislation bars the f.c.c. from regulating rates. it's as simple as that, and i can't imagine why anyone would object. so i want to thank congressman kinzinger for his work on this legislation, holding the f.c.c. and the obama administration accountable. the innovation initiative is all about giving the american people the freedom to grow and prosper. with this the internet stays a little fiscal year, executive overreach is held back and we leave space for the people to innovate without the federal government trying to control it all. i yield back. the chair: the majority leader yields back.

the gentlewoman from california is recognized. ms. eshoo: mr. chairman, does the majority have more speakers? mr. walden: yes, we do. ms. eshoo: then i continue to reserve. the chair: the gentlelady continues to reserve. the gentleman from oregon is recognized. mr. walden: thank you, mr. chairman. with that i'd recognize another member on our subcommittee, the gentleman from missouri, mr. long, for a minute. the chair: the gentleman from missouri is recognized for one minute. mr. long: i thank the gentleman for yielding, and, mr. speaker, you don't need a ph.d. from m.i.t. to understand what's going on here. despite president obama and federal communications commission commission chairman wheeler's past promise not to regulate, retail rates of internet service providers, the chairman announced last week that the f.c.c. will start a new regulatory framework for the evolving business data market and told other house and energy committee members last month that the f.c.c. should have the authority to regulate broadband rates.

today, service providers -- today, service provided over modern broadband facilities to customers are unregulated. it's a vibrant market where broadband compete vigorously for customers. if the administration gets in their way, the f.c.c. will reverse course, price regulate business services and create disincentives for further investment and deployment of high speed fiber networks throughout the nation. these burdens would harm investments, stifle innovation and cost tens of thousands of jobs. mr. speaker, our economy and american workers cannot afford the impact. i urge my colleagues to join me and support this crucial bill, and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. does the gentlewoman continue to reserve, the gentlewoman from california? mr. walden: do you have more speakers? -- ms. eshoo: do you have more speakers? mr. walden: oh, yes.

the chair: the gentlewoman from california continues to reserve. mr. walden: i yield to the gentleman from louisiana, mr. scalise, i recognize for a minute. the chair: the gentleman from louisiana is recognized. mr. scalise: thank you, mr. chairman. thank you to chairman walden and i want to thank my colleague, congressman kinzinger for his leadership on bringing this bill. we want to continue the great innovation we've seen from the technology industry. it's not because government sat there and regulated every aspect of what they do. it's because government frankly hasn't figured out how to regulate because the industry moves so fast and i think that's been a good thing and it's shown if you allow an industry to go out there and invest private money and create great new technologies, great new projects, you look at the development deployment of broadband, it's literally changing people's lives for the good. it's allowed america to be a great technological leader.

when you see the threat of the f.c.c. setting rates, regulating broadband, it will send a chilling effect that will not only kill that investment, slow down the ability and the growth that we've seen that have been so evolutionary in this country, but it will kill jobs in this country. we need to stop the threat of the f.c.c. being able to set rates in a way that can slow down that growth. we've seen such tremendous growth in the technology industry by the government not being in this arena. what congressman kinzinger is doing for this bill protects taxpayers and innovation we need in this country. i urge adoption of this bill and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from oregon reserves. the gentlewoman from california. ms. eshoo: i continue to reserve, mr. speaker. the chair: the gentlewoman from california reserves. the gentleman from oregon. mr. walden: i recognize the gentleman from florida, another member of our committee, mr.

bilirakis, for a minute. the chair: the gentleman from florida is recognized for a minute. mr. bilirakis: thank you. i rise in support of h.r. 2666, the no rate regulation of broadband internet access act, which will prohibit the f.c.c. from regulating the rates charged for broadband internet access service. this bill will help prevent further f.c.c. overreach, save tens of thousands of jobs, keep rates affordable for consumers and provide certainty for the future of internet broadband regulation. for the last year and a half, the f.c.c. insisted it would not regulate broadband internet rates. that changed last month when chairman wheeler reversed course and contradicted all testimony on the f.c.c.'s intent to regulate late rates. many of our local businesses and organizations would suffer from further f.c.c. overreach. many already suffer from the uncertainty and vague new legal standards imposed by the f.c.c. regulating rates before and

even after they are issued would further infuse the worst government meddling into a market that should remain nimble and competitive. i thank congressman kinzinger for his excellent and timely work on this bill. i urge my colleagues to support h.r. 2666. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from oregon reserves. the gentlewoman from california. ms. eshoo: continue to reserve. the chair: the gentlewoman from california reserves. the gentleman from oregon. mr. walden: with that i yield one minute to a gentleman who cares deeply about this issue, that is mr. carter from georgia. the chair: the gentleman from georgia is recognized. mr. carter: mr. speaker, i rise today to express my support of h.r. 2666. in 2015 the f.c.c. reclassified internet service providers as title 2 common carriers, giving themselves the ability to regulate internet rates and user privacy. the administration has promised this new agency power would not be used to regulate broadband rates.

however, f.c.c. chairman tom wheeler has admitted that the f.c.c. should have the authority to do so. this regulatory uncertainty is why this bill is needed. h.r. 2666 would prohibit the f.c.c. from regulating rates charged for broadband internet access, holding the administration to the promise they made to american consumers. preventing government interference with broadband retail rates would give smaller providers greater confidence when making investments. particularly those that would increase internet access in rural and small communities. i urge my colleagues to help prevent government micromanagement of the internet access by supporting h.r. 2666. thank you, mr. speaker. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from oregon reserves. the gentleman from oregon. mr. walden: mr. chairman, we had one other we thought was coming but he has not arrived. i don't know if the gentlelady

wants to proceed. ms. eshoo: i believe we have someone that has arrived. i would be happy to yield two minutes to the gentlewoman from new york, an important member of the committee, ms. clarke. the chair: the gentlewoman from new york is recognized for two minutes. ms. clarning k4r08 -- i thank our ranking minority member, ms. eshoo, and chairman. mr. speaker, i rise today to rate h.r. 2666, no regulation of broadband internet access act, that will prohibit the f.c.c. from regulating rates from broadband internet access. i agree with the premise behind the bill. the commission should not be setting rates for broadband

access. in fact, we have heard from f.c.c. chairman wheeler, he has stated several times, that he does not intend to set rates. like millions of americans who made their voices heard last year, i support a free and open internet. i do not believe the f.c.c. needs to get into the business of regulating consumer broadband rates. h.r. 2666, however, is overbroad and far-reaching. the unintended consequences of the bill before us would undermine important consumer protections and would threaten a free and open internet. for these reasons i urge my colleagues to oppose the bill before us today. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlewoman yields bafpblgt the gentleman from oregon. mr. walden: mr. chairman, how much time remains on each side? the chair: the gentleman from oregon has seven minutes remaining. and the gentlewoman from california has 15 1/2 minutes remaining. mr. walden: with that i would

be happy to yield a minute to the gentleman from georgia, mr. allen. the chair: the gentleman from georgia is recognized for one minute. mr. allen: thank you, mr. chairman. thanks for your work on this important bill. mr. speaker, i rise today in support of h.r. 2666 the no rate regulation of broadband internet access act. the bill does just that, prohibits the federal communications commission from unnecessarily regulating broadband rates. this legislation ensures that not only the current commission but future commissions do not have the option to regulate broadband internet rates. protecting the free market and encouraging competition and promoting jobs. that's what we need to be all about. plain and simple, un-elected washington bureaucrats at the f.c.c. have set out with another solution in search of a problem. by shifting the classification of broadband internet to be a title 2 common carrier, the f.c.c. is simply reclassifying broadband internet to fall under their rule making

purview. this is nothing more than another power grab by the administration to regulate and control yet another strifment it is i--- industry. it is estimated that if rules regulating broadband services are carried out, it could cost over 43,000 jobs. i think we could all agree, it is not time to gamble with american jobs. when bureaucrats in washington play the regulation game, no one wins. i'm a proud co-sponsor of h.r. 2666 and encourage my colleagues to join me in support of this legislation. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from oregon reserves. the gentlewoman from california. ms. eshoo: mr. chairman, i have no further requests for time. i'm prepared to close. the chair: the gentlewoman is recognized. ms. eshoo: thank you, mr. chairman. this has been an interesting discussion on the floor this morning. for people that are tuned in, i think that i want to stay away om federal talk,

telecommunications talk, governmentese. what this debate is all about is the internet. clear difference between how the democrats view the internet and how to protect its openness and its accessibility, and that rests in net neutrality. not a very sexy term, but what it means is is that no i.s.p. can get in the way of the consumer. people want to -- all you have to do is look in your purse or in your pocket, and what you take out and the contents that you view, and all of the -- whatever the internet carries, no company can get in the way of that. to chop it up, to slow it down, to speed it up, to charge more.

now, our republican colleagues have fought mightily, and i alute them with their mightily launched campaign. that they don't believe in that. and that's really what's underneath this. they talk about federal bureaucracies. they don't like that. they talk about bureaucrats, they don't like them. they talk about the president. they don't like him. but really what's at the heart of all of this is that we believe in that open, accessible internet, we do not believe that the executive branch, in this case the f.c.c., should be able to regulate broadband rates. we have said so. we have said so time and again. the gentleman from north dakota objected to my amendment. he said that there was an

oxymoron. our amendment codified, codified, no one else codified. we offered codification in the law that future, not only this f.c.c. commission, but all future commissions, all future chairmen, cannot exact rate regulation. i don't know what needs to be done in order to get to yes around here. and it's curious to me that all of the speakers on the other side never referenced what we put on the table. that there is agreement. so really what this bill, this bill goes beyond that. and that's what we object to. there is not one consumer organization in our country that supports what the majority is doing. we stand with consumers.

they need a cop on the beat. we don't need rate regulation of the -- of broadband, but the f.c.c., just the way other agencies are supposed to look after the best interest of the american people. in fact, in the communications act, the public interest is stated over 100 times. we believe in that. the majority has gone too far with this bill. and it can hurt small businesses. it will hurt consumers. and that's where we draw the line. so, mr. chairman, for all of these reasons i urge my colleagues to vote no on 2666. it goes too far. we were willing to meet and join hands and have something sail through the house. i think it would have in the other body as well. and that is that there be no rate regulation of broadband

and the internet. but that wasn't -- i don't know, maybe i think the majority was shocked that we agreeed with their talking point. we are serious about it. we offered a solution to it. that was rejected not once but twice. very disappointing. so for all of these reasons and what my colleagues stated on this side in the magnificent statements that they made i would urge the house to reject this legislation because it goes well beyond its stated intent. with that i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlewoman yields back. the gentleman from oregon. mr. walden: thank you, mr. chairman. i do appreciate the comments of my friend and i consider her a good friend. we worked together on a lot of issues successfully and found common ground time and again. then there are days like today where we just see things differently and perhaps read them differently. that is what democracy is, after all, all about. competing ideas, coming to an

open marketplace where we can have an up or down vote by the people's representatives. let me talk about a couple of things, mr. chair. first of all the issue of net neutrality itself. as my friend from california knows, i put together a draft bill in january of 2015. nearly a year and a half ago now. that bill said no blocking. no paid prioritization. no throttling. and required transparency. the core principles of an open internet order. for all those things my colleagues on this side of the aisle are for all those things. the door remains open for democrats to join us in sponsoring that legislation. we look forward to that, hopefully going forward, but we couldn't reach agreement on those very clear positions. my colleague said, gee, they are for not having federal communications commission regulate rates for broadband internet access service. i think that's an accurate description of what you said

you were for. let me go to page three of the bill and just simply read section 6 -- from line six, section 2. regulation of broadband rates prohibited. line seven, notwithstanding any other provision of the law, federal communications commission may not regulate the rates charged for broadband internet service -- internet access service. that's what this bill does. now, here's where people may get a little confused. because on the one hand we say no tariffing. that means no setting of the rates ahead of time. we agree on that's a bad idea. you have heard that from both sides of the aisle here. but see the door that remains cracked open is the one they refuse to close. so the chilling winter air of regulatory overreach blows through that crack in the door because if you don't close the ability of the agency to come in after the fact and say, what you did on your rates we no

longer think is correct, then you have after the fact rate regulation, which is even more uncertain than up front tariffing. up front setting the rates. that is what we find ourselves in disagreement with my friends across the identical -- aisle. they are willing to say no tariffing in advance, but they are not willing to close the door that allows the chilly air that will freeze out innovation . a post-action regulation from occurring. and having been in small business for 20-plus years early in my life and the radio business, i know what regulation is. i know what a public file is. i actually kept them. did all these things at our radio station. can i not imagine after the fact my regulator could come back and say you know those ads you sold to the local car dearly, we think even though they were printed on your rate card and publicly disclosed, we think, you know, maybe that was a little too high.

and so you got to go back and you got to change things. there's no definition of how far back they could go. could they go back six months, a year, two years, 10 years? i don't in a moment the internet thrives today in an environment where it was never regulated. that's what really made it go off the charts is the innovators in the silicon valley and i dare say in my district in oregon and elsewhere, all over the world, literally, there a's -- there's no central only point of innovation when it comes to the internet and technology, it's global. and the economy has flourished globally and it's done it without three commissioners -- three people in america deciding what you can and can't do. mommy can, daddy can, is it ok after the fact? this is the new environment when you treat the internet like an old black dial-up phone and that's what chairman

wheeler decided to do. they lost their independence and has gone down the path saying the internet is like an old phone uhle line and you heard my friend, mr. cramer, who was in the rate regulation business. he said the internet, it's not appropriate to regulate it as an old common carrier, like a monopoly because the internet is not a monopoly. we want competition which we know drives down people. when you have three people in america wanting to set the tes after the fact which was what would happen, they get to make the call, not consumers who say, you know, i kind of like that ben john thing. that's new and innovative. the chairman said, yeah, we let that go. we think that's ok. ah, that's the point. the chairman got to say we think that's ok. prior to title 2 regulation,

the chairman didn't have a say in that. the marketplace did and the consumers could say, i don't like that, so i'm going to that carrier. another say, i'll offer you this. now it's going to get second guessed by a government, that will get more regulatory in its scope and scheme. finally, let me state, the argument raised early whier that somehow consumers could be hurt by truth in billing fraud, paid prioritization, we specifically address those in the bill that came to the floor. we listened to our colleagues. we listened to those who testified. we made changes in the bill. we didn't do everything that everybody wanted because this is a compromised process and it is a good piece of legislation that protects consumers, encourages innovation and does what our constituents want us to do, draw clear statutory lines that agencies have to follow, not devolve all the authority to them. with that, mr. chairman, i urge passage of h.r. 2666.

the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. all time for general debate has expired. pursuant to the rule, the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the committee on energy and commerce shall be considered as an original bill under the five-minute rule and shall be considered as read. no amendment to the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be in order except those printed in house report 114- 490. each such -- 490. such each amendment may be offered by a member designated in the report, shall be considered as read and shall be debatable for the time specified in the report equally divided by proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment and shall not be subject for demand for division of the question. the chair understands that amendment number 1 will not be offered. it is now in order to consider amendment number 2 printed in house report 114-490. for what purpose does the gentleman from kentucky seek recognition? mr. yarmuth: mr. chairman, i rise as the designee of mr. lujan and i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 2 printed in house report 114-490 offered by mr. yarmuth of

kentucky. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 672, the gentleman from kentucky, mr. yarmuth, and a member opponented, will each control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from kentucky. mr. yarmuth: thank you, mr. chairman. i rise to offer an amendment that will make it easier for the american people to figure out who is trying to influence their vote through campaign ads. right now when someone is placing a political commercial on the air, the tv station is required to upload to the f.c.c. public site information that identifies the name of the ad's sponsor, the duration of the ad and the cost of the ad. but the f.c.c.'s site is cumbersome, slow and impossible to search which defeats this requirement. this amendment clarifies that nothing in the underlying bill will prevent the f.c.c. from requiring those entities that must submit a public inspection file to do so in a machine readable format which will guarantee it is easily sortable, searchable and downloadable. adopting the lujan amendment will send a message to the f.c.c. that there is strong

congressional support for making this information more accessible so that the american people have at least a chance to figure out who is trying to influence our elections. furthermore, this amendment would fix a real-world problem. unlike the underlying bill which is a vague solution in search of a nonexistent problem. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from oregon seek recognition? mr. walden: mr. chairman, i rise in opposition to the amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. walden: mr. chairman, this amendment states nothing in the bill shall affect the f.c.c.'s authority to require the tv and radio -- that tv and radio stations and video and satellite providers make this available online in a machine readable format. mr. chairman, i was in the radio business for 21 years. i would guess i'm probably one of the few, if only, people that had to maintain a public file and i don't know if the gentleman knows all the things that are in those public files.

i'd be happy to go through the very long list of them because i don't think the way the amendment is constructed is perhaps what he is seeking. i understand the part about public disclosure of time purchase, who's purchasing and all of that. but you know, the public file includes all f.c.c. authorizations, applications and related materials, contour maps, ownership reports and related materials. portions of equal employment opportunity file, the public and broadcasting manual itself. children's television programming reports, d.t.v. education reports, citizen agreements. then the political file. letters and emails from the public, material relating to f.c.c. investigations and complaints issues, program lists, donor lists for noncommercials, records concerning children's programming, announcement, time

brokeage radge agreements, joint sales. -- brokeage agreements, joint sales. we were just a little a.m. and f.m. station. it was a full drawer. if you didn't have each file in the proper order you could be fined. you had to have the political catechism in there. all these things. i'm for disclosure. we had to do it. people came and looked at the file. it was all open and transparent. now it does have to be online already. i just think this is an inappropriate place to go down this other path when we're dealing with rate regulation about the internet. i would argue, mr. chair, this is the wrong place and i think the amendment is clumsyly worded in terms of the scope and magnitude that would occur in terms of making all this machine readable because i don't know how -- i'm thinking of a little a.m. radio station out there that's barely keeping the doors open and we have to tell them they have to have

their contour maps machine readable. i don't know how to do that. i know some programs like adobe you can click. others you can't. pretty big new requirement on these stations. with that, mr. chairman, i'd oppose it and reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from kentucky. mr. yarmuth: mr. chairman, i'd like to yield one minute to the gentlelady from new york, ms. clarke. the chair: the gentlelady from new york is recognized for one minute. ms. clarke: i thank mr. yarmuth for yielding the minute. mr. speaker, i rise today to support the lujan-pallone-yarmuth and clarke amendment. this commonsense amendment would ensure that the f.c.c. can easily determine who is paying for political ads. more specifically, this amendment would guarantee that nothing in this bill would prevent the f.c.c. from requiring that tv broadcast stations, a.m. and f.m. radio broadcast stations, cable operators, direct broadcast satellite service providers, or

satellite digital audio radio service providers upload the public inspection file in a format that is machine readable. unfortunately, there is a large amount of unlimited money moving through our electoral system. this amendment gives all voters the peace of mind knowing our elections are fair and transparent, so i urge my colleagues to support this amendment and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlewoman yields back. the gentleman from kentucky reserves. the gentleman from oregon. mr. walden: i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from oregon reserves. the gentleman from kentucky. mr. yarmuth: i'm prepared to close, mr. chairman. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. yarmuth: and i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. yarmuth: first in response to chairman walden and i know he shares my interest in creating effective disclosure of campaign contributions and ads that this ad does not mandate any particular form of machine readable information. it only says that the

commission is not prohibited from requiring that certain parts of information are readable in machine format. but i want to read a few quotes on disclosure. disclosure avoids the appearance of corruption by exposing large contributions and expenditures to the light of publicity. quote, with modern technology disclosure, it protects the means of arming the public by means of information. disclosure offers more robust protections against corruption. quote, because massive quantity its of information can be accessed at the click of a mouse, disclosure is affected to a degree not possible at the time of buckley or even mcconnell was decided. all of the quotes are from the majority opinion in mccutchen v. the federal communications commission written by chief justice roberts. i agree with his opinion that it is integral to the

disclosure in the wake of this decision. i believe adopting the commonsense lujan amendment shows that congress values transparency in government and will help restore a level of trust with the public and i urge my colleagues to support it. with that i yield the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from kentucky yields back. the gentleman from oregon. mr. walden: mr. chairman, i rise to -- in closing statements to oppose the gentleman's amendment, again. i think it's overly broad but beyond that, he kind of hit it on the head when he said this doesn't require the f.c.c. to do anything in terms of the machine readable technology because in theory, in reality the way it's written it basically says nothing in this bill prevents them from doing something -- by the way, they can already do. this has nothing to do with the issue at hand in the legislation. you know, our constituents really believe we should take one issue at a time and the issue here is about controlling a bureaucracy from doing something that's never had the power to do something before,

giving clarity in the rketplace that they cannot regulate the rates internet service providers which regulates innovation in new offerings for consumers. so i reluctantly must oppose the amendment and ask my colleagues to do the same and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the question is on the amendment by the gentleman from kentucky. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the amendment is not agreed to. mr. yarmuth: mr. chairman, i request a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from kentucky will be postponed. it's now in order to consider amendment number 3 printed in house report 114-490. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 3 printed in house report 114-490 offered by mr. mcnerney of california. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 672, the gentleman from california, mr. mcnerney, and a member opposed, will each control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from california. mr. mcnerney: thank you, mr.

chairman. i rise to offer an amendment to h.r. 2666. this amendment would help to rein in some of the unintended consequences of the bill by preserving the f.c.c.'s authority to act in the public interest, convenience and necessity. the public interest is a key principle that the commission has used to protect consumers since congress first created the agency in 1934, and it's just as important today. the f.c.c. has consistently looked to the public interest standard when taking action to protect consumers, foster innovation and increase competition. the standard has been a hallmark of many of the most important policies of the commission. to give you a sense, the words public interest appear over 100 times in the communications act. that's 100 times. that's how pervasive it is.

even with the amended version of the bill that was reported out of committee, serious concerns remain that the bill is going to have far-reaching and unintended consequences. for example, it could be that the commission would no longer be able to investigate data caps, pay for privacy practices and the commission could also lose further protections for arious types of unfair and discriminatory practices that affect how much they pay for broadband. my amendment would seek to limit some of those unintended consequences by ensuring that the commission continues to to the a have the authority that historically served it so well. moreover, by preserving the f.c.c.'s authority to act in the public interest, my amendment would safeguard the broad aims that the communication act embodies. this amendment would continue to appropriately focus the f.c.c. to promoting the public good, and i urge my members to

support it. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from oregon seek recognition? mr. walden: well, mr. chairman, i must rise in opposition to this amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. walden: thank you, mr. chairman. this one is a little more insidious than the last one because what it does is recisely what let me make that clear, all over communication. it is so broad you can crife a rate regulated truck back through it and de facto after the fact regulation. that's the point. when you give the bureaucracy. it's on their own authority, we

think that rate is in the public interest to bring down after the fact. what we have done is empower others un-elected to make decisions based on a term of art while it may be pervasive is also wide open. and that's what we are trying to avoid here, mr. chairman. the f.c.c. could say, we are not going to rate regulate unless we want to rate reag late, we'll determine on our own -- regulate, we'll determine on our own if it's in the public interest to do so. that sounds good but in this case remember where we start. until chairman wheeler was directed in effect by the white house to treat the internet like an old utilityity. none of this was regulated. that's the vibrant internet we have today. that's what republicans are trying to preserve is an open internet. we are all with you on blocking and throttling and paid prioritization and those issues. i have draft legislation to .egally say no to all of that

when it comes to suffocating innovation in the marketplace and new offers to the consumers and vibrant competition that's been out here to this point, we have to draw a line with our friends. they say you don't want a tariff in advance, we are with them on that, but the worst thing, the worst thing when you're in business is the uncertainty of after the fact decisionmaking by your regulator. after the fact decisionmaking by your regulator. unfortunately, mr. mcnerney's proposal here, his amendment, would allow that door to remain open. allow the agency to have this unfettered authority. now, we've got provisions throughout the bill and in other law, both at state and federal level, to protect consumers against fraud, to protect consumers on truth in billing. all those things are there. those protections remain. our soul purpose here and why we have been very narrow and specific and clear in our legislation is rate regulation is not something the f.c.c.

should take on. consumers should have that power and authority and people who want to innovate against the giant companies out there should be able to enter that marketplace with creative new packages that allow consumers to make choices and not have to go to washington, d.c., and seek privilege and an audience with the chairman to find out if what they are proposing might be ok after the fact if they do it. mr. chairman, i have to rise in opposition to mr. mcnerney's amendment. he's a good member of the committee. i like working with him. but in this case the amendment is horribly flawed and would do grave damage to the marketplace. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from california. mr. mcnerney: thank you, mr. chairman. i certainly appreciate -- sort of appreciate the chairman's comments. and i do appreciate the idea of broadness here. but if you look at what the actual bill says, may not

regulate rates charged for broadband internet services. that is the definition of broad. you can't get any broader than that. we want to rein that in a little bit. we don't want any unintended consequences. what my amendment says act in the public interest. would the chairman like it if i took out convenient? should i just say act in the public interest and necessaryity? would that be good enough, mr. chairman? mr. walden: would the gentleman yield. what i think would be really good is you withdraw your amendment and vote for the underlying bill that is a good legislative product. mr. mcnerney: i appreciate the chairman's work on this. and i appreciate working with the chairman on this. i'm going to have to insist that we look at this amendment and take it seriously. do i want to protect the public interest. that's what this comes down to. the term shows up 100 times in the act. let's not turn our back on the intent of the act. let's move forward in way that

protects the public interest. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from california yields back. the gentleman from oregon. mr. walden: the gentleman yields back his time. i urge opposition to my friend, mr. mcnerney's amendment, and i yield back. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from california. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have t the amendment is not agreed to. mr. mcnerney: i request a recorded vote. the chair: friction, further proceedings on the amendment offered -- pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from california will be postponed. pursuant to clause 6, rule 18, proceedings will now resume on those amendments pripted in house report in which further proceedings were postponed in the following order, amendment number 2 by mr. yarmuth of connecticut. amendment number 3 by mr. mcnerney of california. the chair will reduce two minutes for any time after the first vote in this series. the unfinished business is the request for recorded vote on amendment number 2 printed in house report number 114-140

which further proceedings were postponed. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 2 printed in house report number 114-490, offered by mr. yarmuth of kentucky. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in sprosht of the request for recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is order. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a 15-minute vote.t. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote the yeas are 179. the nays are 231. he amendment is not adopted.

he committee will be in order. he committee will be in order. embers, please clear the well. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to speak out of order for one minute for the purpose of making an announcement. the chair: without objection, the gentleman is recognized. mr. sessions: mr. chairman, the house is not in order. the chair:, members, please

clear the well. members, please clear the well. the gentleman from texas. mr. sessions: mr. chairman, yesterday the rules committee issued four announcements outlining the amendment processes for h.r. 1206, the no hires for the delinquent i.r.s. act. h.r. 3724, the ensuring integrity in the i.r.s. work force act. h.r. 4885, the i.r.s. oversight while eliminating spending act. and h.r. 4890, a bill imposing a ban on the payment of bonuses to employees of the internal revenue service until the secretary of treasury develops and implements a comprehensive customer services strategy. the amendment deadline for each bill has been set for 10:00 a.m. on monday, april 18. for more details, please contact me or the text of the

bill which you can find on the rules committee website. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. without objection, two-minute voting will continue. the f.b.i. on amendment number 3 printed in house report 114-490. the unfinished business is on the amendment number 3 printed in house report 114-90 which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 3 printed in house report 114-490 offered by mr. mcnerney of california. the chair: a recorded vote's been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote the yeas are 173. the nays are 231. he amendment is not agreed to.

the question is on the amendment in the nature of a substitute. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have t the amendment is adopted. accordingly, under the rule, the committee rises. the speaker pro tempore: mr. chairman. the chair: mr. speaker, the committee of the whole house on the state of the union has had under consideration h.r. 2666 and pursuant to house resolution 6p 2, report the bill back to the house amendment adopted in the committee of the whole. the speaker pro tempore: the chair of the committee of the whole house on the state of the union reports that the committee has had under consideration the bill h.r. 2666 and pursuant to house resolution of 72, reports the bill back to the house with an amendment adopted in the committee of the whole. under the rule the previous question is ordered.

the question is on adoption of the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have t the amendment is agreed to -- have it. the amendment is agreed . to the question son engrossment and third reading of the bill. so many as are in favor say aye. spone. the aye vs. t third reading. the clerk: a bill to prohibit the federal communications commission from regulating the rates charged for broadband internet access service. the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. the house will be in order. he house will be in order. members will please take their seats. he house will be in order.

for what purpose does the gentleman from kentucky seek recognition? mr. yarmuth: i have a motion to recommit at the desk. the speaker pro tempore: is the gentleman opposed to the bill? mr. yarmuth: i am in its current form. the clerk: mr. yarmuth of kentucky moves to recommit the bill -- the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report will suspend. for what purpose does the gentleman from oregon seek recognition? mr. walden: i reserve a point of order on the motion to recommit. the speaker pro tempore: point of order is reserved. the clerk: to the committee on energy and commerce with instructions to report the same back to the house forthwith with the following amendment. add at the end the following, section, upon enactment of this act -- mr. walden: mr. speaker -- the clerk: house concurrent resolution 125. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman will suspend. mr. walden: i ask unanimous consent to dispense with the reading of the motion to recommit. the speaker pro tempore: is there objection? without objection. the read is suspended. -- the reading is suspended. the house will be in order.

the house will be in order. members will remove their conversation from the house floor. he house will be in order. he house will be in order. the gentleman from kentucky is recognized for five minutes. mr. yarmuth: thank you, mr. speaker. this is the final amendment to the bill which will not kill the bill or send it back to committee. if adopted, the bill will immediately proceed to final passage as amended. ladies and gentlemen, today, april 15, is the deadline for congress to enact a budget resolution. but -- >> oot house is not in order. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman will suspend. the gentlewoman correct. the house is not in order. the house will be in order. members will please remove their conversation from the house floor.

he house will be in order. he house will be in order. the gentleman is recognized. mr. yarmuth: thank you, mr. speaker. today, april 15, is the deadline for congress to enact a budget resolution. but here we are set to leave town without taking any action. to their credit republicans did write a budget. and it was approved by their members of the budget committee. so why, after months of promises of a return to regular order, would speaker ryan refuse to allow a floor vote on the republican budget, the budget of his own party, the party he leads? our obligation here in congress is to control the pursestrings of the country. so why would a former budget committee chair not want to vote on his party's budget? unless he didn't want people to know what's inside of it. i don't blame him. our democratic budget invests

in education, infrastructure, medical research, job training, job creation, american priorities that improve our communities today and increase revenue in the future. it's why they are called investments. by contrast republicans took the european austerity approach. eviscerating each of those investments, and taking health coverage away from 20 million americans. ending medicare as we know it. and jeopardizing the retirement of millions of americans. it also makes us less competitive and encourages companies to ship jobs overseas. nobody knows the backlash from this rebuke of american values better than speaker ryan, because the budget he wrote four years ago when he was running for president had to be disavowed by his presidential candidate running mate, mitt romnifment it was so abhorrent to the american people that even his own running mate couldn't support it. so i get it, mr. speaker. i like your budget even less

than you do. but you have it and the people deserve to know what's in it and where their representatives stand on it. earlier this week speaker ryan gave a speech explaining why he wasn't going to be a candidate for president. and he said one of the reasons was we have too much work to do here in congress. well, he sure is right. so why are we here and why are e here yesterday and the day before working on bills that have no consequence to the american people when we should be doing the most important business we can, and that's to decide how much money we are going to spend and wherefore the american people. this motion to recommit is simple. it says upon the bill's passage we will bring the republican budget to the floor. so don't hide behind procedural roadblocks to block debate. if you believe in your budget, make the case for the cameras and the american people. let them see the contrast in our party's values so they can decide for themselves. i urge my colleagues to support

this amendment and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from kentucky yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from oregon seek recognition? mr. walden: mr. speaker, i raise a point of order against the motion because the instruction contains matter in the jurisdiction of a committee to which this bill was not referred, thus violating clause 7 of rule 16. which requires an amendment to be germane, germane to the measure being amended. committee jurisdiction is a central test of gr mainness and i'm afraid i must insist on my point of order. the speaker pro tempore: the other member wish to be heard on the point of order? if not, the chair is prepared to rule. the gentleman from organize beyond make the poipped that the instructions proposed in the motion ro-to-recommit are not germane. clause 7 of rule 16, germaneness rule, provides no proposition on a subject different than that under consideration shall be admitted under color of amendment. one of the central tenets of the germaneness rule is that an amendment may not introduce matter within the jurisdiction

of a committee not represented in the pending measure. the bill, h.r. 2666, as amended, addresses rates for broadband internet access service which is a matter within the jurisdiction of the committee on energy and commerce. the instructions in the motion to recommit proposed in an amendment consisting of a special order of business of the house which is matter within the jurisdiction of the committee on rules. as the chair ruled in similar proceedings yesterday, the instructions in the motion to recommit are not germane because they are not within the jurisdiction of the committee on energy and commerce. accordingly, the motion to recommit is not germane. the point of order is sustained. he motion is not in order. the question is on passage of the bill. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the bill is passed. mr. walden: on that i ask a recorded vote. the speaker pro tempore: a recorded vote is requested. those favoring a recorded vote will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device.

this is a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote, the yeas are 241, the nays are 173. the bill is passed. without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. he house will be in order.

will members please take their conversations off the house floor. he house will be in order. for what purpose does the gentleman from maryland seek recognition? mr. hoyer: i ask unanimous consent to speak out of order for one minute for the purpose of inquiring of the majority leader the schedule for the week to come. the speaker pro tempore: without objection the chair recognizes the gentleman from maryland. mr. hoyer: thank you, and i yield to my friend, mr. mccarthy, the majority leader. mr. mccarthy: i thank the gentleman for yielding and ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. mccarthy: on monday the house will meet at noon for morning hour and 2:00 p.m. for ledges slative business, vets will be postponed until 6:30. on tuesday and wednesday, the house will meet at 10:00 a.m.

r morning hour and 12:00 for legislative business. on thursday, the house will meet at 9:00 a.m. for legislative business and no votes are expected on friday. we will consider a number of bills. since next monday is tax day, the house will also consider four commonsense bills aimed at protecting all taxpayers. irst will be h.r. 1206, the no hires for delinquent i.r.s. act, sponsored by representative david howser -- rouzer, will ensure that i.r.s. employee the very people responsible for collecting taxes from every american, pay their own taxes. h.r. 4885rk the i.r.s. oversight while eliminating spending act, sponsored by representative jason smith, will require fees collected by the i.r.s. to be subject to congressional appropriations so there's proper oversight into how the taxpayer money is spent. h.r. 3724, the ensuring

integrity in the i.r.s. work force act, sponsored by representative kristi noem, will prohibit the i.r.s. from rehiring someone who has been fired for cause. and finally, mr. speaker, h.r. 4890, the i.r.s. bonus tied to measurable metrics act, sponsored by representative pat meehan, will ban i.r.s. bonuses until they can demonstrate improved customer service. it doesn't get any more commonsense than that. i thank the gentleman and i yield back. mr. hoyer: i thank my friend for that information. i want to ask him just one question on one of those commonsense bills that seeks to remove those employees who work for the i.r.s. who collect taxes, that if they're delinquent they will be removed. does that apply to the congress of the united states as well who levies those taxes,? that if we have any member whors

delinquent, that they too will be removed. i yield to my friend. mr. mccarthy: i thank the gentleman for yielding. the bill solely deals with the i.r.s. but you could always offer an amendment. mr. hoyer: i may do that. i thank the gentleman. first of all let me thank the gentleman mr. mccarthy: the bill only goes to the i.r.s. but you may offer an amendment. mr. hoyer: first of all let me thank the gentleman. we are confronting a crisis as the gentleman so well knows in puerto rico on may 1 they will be unable to pay their debts. i want to thank the majority leader who has been leading to reach a bipartisan solution. unfortunately, as the majority leader and i both know, there was a failure in committee this week to move the bill forward, but i want to reiterate that my appreciate to the gentleman from california, the majority leader, for his efforts to make sure that we do, in fact, address this issue before may 1. i want to thank him for that. it is critical that we do so. it's critical that we do so in

a bipartisan fashion. and it's critical to have a bill that both sides can support. i have told the majority leader and i reiterate that we hope that on both restructuring and the composition and authority of a board of review, oversight board, that we can come to an agreement so we can have such a vote and have it in the near future. secondly, mr. leader, can you tell me where we are on -- i know the budget has been reported out of committee. the gentleman talks about tax day. obviously we are now at the point when a budget was expected to be brought to the floor. can the majority leader tell me where we stand on the budget process and the budget coming to the floor of the house of representatives? i yield to my friend. mr. mccarthy: i thank the gentleman for yielding. my first touch on puerto rico, i do thank the gentleman for his work on that. let me first start by saying that any proposal that the house considers cannot be a

bailout of puerto rico. i know the committee had a markup and they postponed the vote on it simply because treasury was still negotiating. we had heard from those on your side of the aisle that they did not want to pursue or continue until treasury was done negotiating. so we look forward to continuing in solving this problem in a bipartisan manner. i also understand the gentleman asking about the budget. do i believe the budget process is important -- i do believe the budget process is an important one. it is out of committee and i look forward to getting it on the floor. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman. let me mention two other items briefly. i know the gentleman has a time constraint. zika and ebola continue to be challenges to the health of americans and, indeed, the health of the international community as well. obviously we previously committed a significant sum of

money to meet the ebola crisis, which still remains with us. it is not the immediacy -- as front burner as it was for a period of time, but is nevertheless, as the gentleman knows, a very significant and serious one. in addition, of course, we have the crisis that zika poses to the health and welfare not only of women who either may or are pregnant, but also to others as well. can the gentleman tell me where the funding -- i know as the gentleman knows, the administration transferred some funds out of the money that was dedicated to ebola. i want to thank the gentleman for having a hearing which he invited me. we joined in having that hearing and we had secretary burwell of h.h.s., tony fauci of i.h., and dr. freedian

c.d.c. they transferred some money. does the gentleman have any information has to when we might move forward both on back filling the money that's been taken from ebola and responding to the administration's request for funding for response to zika? i yield. mr. mccarthy: do i think the gentleman's work, bipartisan, on our challenge with zika, and as we continue to move forward with t i'm very happy to see the administration did take our advice last week and began using the unused ebola funding in oufer efforts -- in our efforts to combat zika. that money will go a long way to containing the disease, but i had met with the chairman of appropriations just today. the continuing to look and monitor. we believe this money will take us throughout the rest of this fiscal year. but we will look and monitor where we need and what we need to move forward.

as the gentleman knows, zika every day we continue to learn more about it. we are committed on this side and i know on your side as well to make sure we eradicate this problem from ever furthering in america. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman. i look forward to working with him on both continue to focus on ebola while at the same time we focus on the immediate threat of zika. last comment i would make, mr. leader, mr. speaker, is that members ought to be disabused of the concept, and i have heard it as well as the gentleman has heard it, that the legislation under consideration for puerto rico is a bailout. there is no money going to puerto rico. there is no guarantee of any of their indebtedness going from the united states to puerto rico. this is simply whether or not we can construct a mechanism so that they can restructure their debt, which may prolong the period of time in which the

debt's paid off. it may reduce by some amount a debt that is repaid, but as the gentleman knows, and i know, he's shaking his head in agreement, we are not contemplating, nor are we moving forward on a bailout for puerto rico. unless the gentleman wants to say something further, i'll yield back the balance of my time, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the entleman yield back.

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that when the house add yourn today it adjourn to monday, april 18, 2016, when it shall convene for 12 p.m. for morning hour date and 2:00 p.m. for legislative business. the chair will now entertain requests for one-minute speeches. for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i rise to make comments which i would like to revise and extend in this time period. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman virginia is recognized for one minute. mr. brat: mr. speaker, i rise in recognition of tom bowers. tom is the commonwealth's attorney for city of salem, virginia, who today in a formal award ceremony at federal bureau of investigation headquarters is receiving the

ridge mond f.b.i.'s 2015 director's community leadership award for his efforts to organize a heroin prevention initiative in the row the motion to reconsider, virginia, area. regrettably the growing epidemic of heroin use is a plague on our communities and communities throughout the united states. mr. griffith: addressing this nationwide problem will require expanded coordination and involvement by local, state, and federal governments, as well as law enforcement agencies and health care professionals. i applaud commonwealth's attorney bowers and those working for him on the heroin prevention initiative for their efforts to combat the heroin epidemic by bringing awareness to the pervasiveness of prescription drug and heroin use among youth in our area and helping to alleviate damage to our community. others involved in this important work and initiative include the roanoke area youth substance abuse council, the prevention council of roanoke county, virginia state police, the city of roanoke police

department, the roanoke county police department. i also would note, of course, that tom bowers represents the city of salem and city of salem folks are involved as well. congratulations to commonwealth's attorney tom bowers on being presented the richmond f.b.i.'s 2015 director's community leadership award. i yield back, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman from california is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, mr. speaker. irvington, new jersey, christmas day, december 25, 2013. pierre clairvoyant, 34. woodly daniel, 32. rochester, new york, august 19, 2015, johnny johnson, 25 years old.

la kwan, 19. jonah, 17. february 25, 2016, heston, kansas. brian, 43. josh, 31. renee, 30. pittsburgh, pennsylvania, march 9, 2016, tina, 37 years old. jerry shelton, 35. brittany powell, 27. shadea, 26. jeanettea powell, 25. waynesville, indiana, may 11, 2013. katherine burton, 53. aaron t. cross, 41. sean burton, 41. thomas w. smith, 39. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from michigan seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman from michigan is

recognized for one minute. >> thank you. mr. benishek: mr. speaker, today i rise to urge the senate to quickly act on house passed v.a. accountability legislation. according to recent v.a. inspector general reports, wait time manipulation occurred at 40 v.a. facilities in 19 states. yet almost no one has seriously been held accountable for these failures. this isn't even including the most egregious example of failures like the v.a. employee who was convicted of charges of the armed robbery and still couldn't be fired. the house has passed legislation to get at the root of this problem, and it's past time the senate acts. h.r. 1994, the v.a. accountability act, contains my legislation that forces v.a. employees to solve problems for veterans. if they can't, the v.a. needs to make room for someone who can. our veterans are too important to us, and they are counting on congress to deliver them the

care they need and deserve. we have to send the v.a. accountability legislation to the president's desk now. thank you, mr. speaker. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: thank the gentleman. for what purpose does the gentlelady rise? >> to address the house for one minute. revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from california is ecognized. ms. sanchez: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today to honor judge fed congratulate and him on his retirement. the judge is a member of the latino community and a judge of the superior court of orange county. he was born and raised in fullerton, california. d he's the grandson of mexican immigrants.

he graduated from the university of southern california with a degree in history, and he earned his law degree at ucla. his career in public advocacy began when he atended the league of united latin american citizens, he began to attend the meetings and by the time he was a senior in high school, he was the president-elect of the local chapter. he's the founder of the -- co-founder of the hispanic association of lawyers in orange county. the hispanic advisory council for the court appointed special advocates or casa as we know it. the founder and vice president of the leadership academy of the superior court. and the president of latino advocates for education. i know him best because he honors our veterans every year in a very large ceremony calling out their service in the different wars. i'm honored to recognize judge frederick for his outstanding

achievements within the latino community, the orange county community, monks our veterans and all -- amongst our veterans and all citizens. i yield back, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from illinois seek recognition? >> >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> last week, the department of labor finalized its fiduciary rule, or as we call it, obamacare for financial planning. this reclassifies and expands the scope of individuals considered financial advisors and adds the department of labor as a new regulator. the investment advisory industry is already among the most regulated but this rule will force sweeping overhaul of the financial services industry and most importantly hurts middle class americans. mr. lahood: this new rule change, which circumvents the

congress and the constitution, will significantly raise legal and compliance costs making it expensive, difficult, and impractical for companies like state farm which is headquartered in my congressional district, and their advising agents to continue to provide services to small businesses and hardworking customers. ultimately this rule will drastically narrow the access these families, trying to save for retirement by making financial advice more expensive. it even penalizes small businesses who want to provide benefits for their employee, thereby discouraging small businesses from providing. i'm committed to fighting the implementation of this rule and urge my colleagues to join me. thank you, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from florida seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without

objection, the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. mr. speaker, this week we mark equal payday, the day more than three month into the year when women's earnings finally catch up to men's from the previous year. mr. speaker, it all adds up. $430,000. that's how much the average income lost for a woman throughout her career as a result of this unfair wage gap. ms. frankel: this mean ours mothers and our grandmothers get less for their retirement security and more of them in poverty. inequality hurts the heart and hurts the pocketbook, it hurts women and their families. that's why we need paycheck fairness, affordable child care, paid family leave and retirement security. when women succeed, america

succeeds. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> i rise today, mr. speaker, for the 14th consecutive year to speak out on behalf of the lgbtq youth community. it is unacceptable that in 2016, young people are still experiencing discrimination across this country based on their sexual orientation or gender identity. caleb lennon, a young transgender student in my district, see this is day as a chance to combat the bullying, the slurs, and the putdowns that these children face on a daily basis. mr. farr: i'm proud to lend my voice to caleb's cause. it is our duty to speak out against big triand hatred facing this community. we must celebrate the diversity in this country and reject all

forms of discrimination. mr. speaker, this is my last year for taking the floor and supporting these young people. i ask next year my colleagues stand where i am and lend their voices to the support of the lgbtq community. today as youth across the country take a vow of silence to protest the silent response they see to big tri, i ask one last time -- to bigotry, i ask one last time to remember while you are silent, we here in congress should not be. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from california seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection the gentlewoman from california is recognized for one inute. ms. lee: i rise today to talk about the committee hearing on the failure of trickle down economics. the hearing highlighted the daily hardships faced by more than 46 million americans. we know that too many families

struggle to buy healthy food, pay rent, and access a good-paying job. i was very proud that among the witnesses at the hear, all of whom were phenomenal, was my constituent, oakland resident violate henderson who shared her personal story of overcoming poverty and after leaving, unfortunately, the criminal justice system, after being paroled, she gave us her story, ld her story, she's a phomenal individual, raising her two children and is a student. she succeeded agait overwhelming odds. her story is a powerful example of resilience and dedication which so many struggling americans have. it should be a callo action for members of congress to help more people like violate with supporting policies that will end poverty. yet our republican colleagues continue to promote harmful cuts to critical safety net program, despite knowing that these would push more families over the edge and the record of members on speaker rein's so-called task

force on poverty, opportunity, and upward mobility are just as bad if not worse. time and time again they voted to cut snap, erode higher education funding, pell grants, and weaken affordable access programs. i ask for unanimous consent to insert violate henderson's testimony into the record. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from texas seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. ms. jackson lee: thank you, mr. speaker. this morning, i had the privilege of participating with the union theological center in new york to speak about how faith -- about our faith and our legislation. it causes me to come to the floor today to act upon that very strong faith. in the good samaritan that means that we are in fact brothers' and cystest' keeper. we have a devastating disease in the zika virus that's been announced as being more devastating than had been

expected -- had been expected. causing severe brain damage. and my state and gulf states are in the target line. we recently had a zika virus hearing in our -- and our infectious disease experts told us this is a devastating disease. so i'm asking this congress, yes we can take money from someplace else, barro -- borrow from peter to pay paul but i'm asking for the spirit of the good samaritan and pass the president's emergency supplemental request of $1.9 billion. i'll be asking the sec retear of health and human services to come to texas, sit down with our law enforcement, health professionals, in order to make a difference. finally, let me say, mr. speaker, this is budget day and we have not passed a budget. we will not pass a republican budget because it kills education, it doesn't protect social security, and it is not in the spirit of a good samaritan. let us do what is right. pass a budget for the american people prorkvide for those in the line of danger with the zika

virus. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the hair will receive a message. the messenger: mr. speaker, a message from the senate. the secretary: mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: madam sec retear. the secretary: i have been directed by the senate to inform the house that the senate has passed s. 1436, an act cited as the nevada native nations land act in which the concurrence of the house is requested. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? without objection the gentleman from texas is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, something important for the american people to know. today is the day that the law requires that congress enact a budget resolution by april 15. mr. veasey: obviously that ain't going to happen. however, the republican led budget committee did share a budget blueprint with the g.o.p. leadership. ultimately the leadership decided it wasn't harsh enough

on families, seniors, or children to pass through a republican majority. a federal budget should be a reflection of our values as a nation and the details and the rumors about the road to ruin that the republicans want to release are just not good. apparently attempting to end medicare guarantees for seen yorks peel the affordable care act and block investments in good paying jobs are not sufficiently brutal enough for the radicals within the republican party. if this version of the budget couldn't muster enough support to bring to the house floor, i fear what the house republican majority should propose. the house should continue to press for a budget that grows jobs and paychecks and invests in the future of the american people like we always do. we believe in those values and that's what we will continue to fight for. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the chair lays before the house the following personal request. the clerk: leaf of absence

requested for mr. jones of north carolina for today. the speaker pro tempore: without objection the request is granted. under the speaker's announced policy of january 6, 2015, the gentleman if texas, mr. gohmert is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader. mr. gohmert: on monday, being argued before the united states supreme court, the eight justices remaining, is a case of united states versus texas. it will take up the president's started to say his executive order but in the case of his majesty's program on amnesty

there actually was no executive order that was signed by the president. like you find in a lot of countries around the world where there's a dictator, there was a speech made, comments made by the ruler, and then the secretary of homeland security, in our case, secretary johnson, made a series of memos to carry on high. ctation from and it overrode the laws that were duly passed by both houses of congress, previous presidents, and that's where we run into some trouble. that's where you run into benjamin n doing what

franklin suggested might be , ssible to undo, as we know at the constitutional convention a lady asked him whark did you give us -- him, what did you give us, he said, a republic, madam, if you can keep. it one of the ways you do not keep representative -- keep it. one of the ways you do not keep representative government, self-government through electing of representatives to do the will of the people is to go and have those elections and elect people that pass laws and the government -- i mean the founders wanted government to have gridlock. as i mentioned before, justice scalia talking to 50 or so senior citizens from my district explained that the reason we're the freest country in history, or at least we used to be, the indicators indicate we're not the freest country anymore, but

the reason we became, for a while there the freest country in history was because the founders did not trust government. they knew that if it was too easy for a government to make laws or just to dictate what would happen in a country, then eople would not be free. life, pledged their liberty, sacred honor, they pledged everything and many, most, actually, of the signers of the deck rahlation of -- declaration of independence did not have very pleasant lives after signing of that. many lost their treasure, their fortune. they never lost their sacred honor. they pledged it, and they never lost their sacred honor. when you look at all the

sacrifices that were made to try to allow us to have representative self-government, and as difficult as it is to pass a bill here in the house, have the senate pass the same bill or a similar bill if they're not the same, go to conference and try to work out a bill that's the same, get it passed in both houses, send to the president, get the president to sign it, have the supreme court say yes, that's consistent with the constitution, that's very difficult. but all of those things have happened with regard to our immigration law that the , as any talked about good ruler would, and of course as any good ruler, he had a secretary of homeland security, did memos that said, ok, we're going to just not pay any attention to that law, here's the new law.

and i was amazed to hear all of the major networks, including fox news, talk about here's the new program. here's the new plan. that memos were concocted overroad the laws that were duly passed in the house and senate and signed previously by the president. just overroad the law. -- overrode the law. said we're not going to do that. we have in their opinion the discretion to just ignore the law. and do what we want. there's a good article out of the hoover institution journal . itten by michael mcconnell and it was just -- it just came out on april 15.

i thought it did a good job of discussing these issues that are coming up before the supreme court on monday. and also by way of further preface, the decision originated in the southern district of texas before united states district judge andrew hanen who happened to be one of the smartest people in his class. and actually going through law school, one. more liberal people in our class in law school, -- one of the more liberal people in our class in law school, but a brilliant guy. and the more he delved into issues he better lawyer he became, one of the best firms in houston. and he has become a profoundly a d arbitrator of justice as

united states judge. so judge hanen wrote a very ngthy order in which he also - he enjoined carrying out the wishes that were dictated by the secretary of homeland security, because they would violate the law. they say, we're ignoring the law. and the judge could see that there are massive consequences. and although right here in this very room the president said, we're not going to cover people that are illegally in the country with his obamacare, turns out that wasn't true. and we have apparently massive numbers who get the earned income tax credit, whether legally or not, i have people constantly telling me they work

for different income tax services and they provide services to people that don't have social security numbers, that are legitimate, and they all know about the earned income tax credit, they all want it on their -- they all claim it, whether they can tell you where their kids are or not, they want that credit and we're paying out -- there's been some massive projections of just how much in millions . d billions is being paid out we previously had reporting about, just in one little community, how numerous people claim to live in one home, claim to have as many as 30 kids or so in that home, so they can claim all those earned income tax credits, so they can get a big refund. there's massive amounts of

money that's being taken from those who earned it and given to those who have come into the country illegally. and, i don't have articles in froment of me, there are articles -- in front of me, there are articling out this week talking about -- articles out this week talking about that actually by more than the current unemployment rate, even the real rate, not the one that's just made up, it doesn't include the 94 million or so who are eligible to work, have tried to find work, and given up trying to find work, but , her number you care to use we have that percentage of people who have immigrated to america, thank god for legal one in ion, but perhaps six people working in america

are first generation immigrants and that's great, but the trouble is, a huge portion of those are illegally in the country. and the president can say all he want to, well, they're doing -- wants to, well, they're doing jobs that americans won't do, but when rates are lowered, that are being paid, wages are lowered that are being paid to americans looking for and working, it affects their homes, it's affected their standard of living, it's caused people to be unemployed who would be employed if they weren't competing with people that took lower wages because they're here illegally. and of course yesterday we learned that the i.r.s.

commissioner, head of the i.r.s., koskinen, is an accomplice. the use complicit in of stolen illegal social security numbers because he says, you know, it's ok if they use stolen social security numbers for a good basis, we just don't want them to use it for a bad basis. and apparently for him somebody falling -- filing a purgered and fraudulent income tax return and getting a refund of money that they very well may not be entitled to at all and should not be entitled to is one of the good purposes. he clearly needs to be impeached and removed from office, as head of the internal revenue service. but hopefully that will be happening in the near future. there has to be consequences

for violating the law, for helping others violate the law, by looking the other way and announcing you're looking the other way while people violate the law. america is in trouble. we can very well be greece right now if it weren't for the united states having the dollars, the international currency -- dollar as the international currency and having our ability to print our own money which greece -- neither of which greece has. but this case being taken up on has y by the supreme court the ability to basically make by saying, ullity you know what, look, if a president -- he was elected eight years ago and four years ago, so if he wants to just

ignore laws and do what he wants that's not according to the law, shouldn't that be ok? it is incredible how some, even who have advanced degrees, are so uneducated on how you keep a republic. well, michael mcconnell says, one of the most closely watched cases before the supreme court this term is united states vs. texas. the immigration case that's scheduled to be argued on april 18, the supreme court surprised most observers when it asked the parties in that case to address a question they did not raise. in their briefs. that question is whether president obama's deferred action for parents of americans order violates the take care clause of article 2 of the

constitution. the take care clause has never before been enforced by the court and most people have probably never heard of it. we insert here, my dear friend from florida, congressman ted yoho, has been advocating for some time we pass a bill that just sets out an enabling statute that says, here's what of -- following and enforcing the law, this is what take care means under the constitution. and set some requirements out so we actually had have some hard requirements against which to measure a president's performance in order to determine whether he's violated the take care clause and ought to be removed from office. but before you can determine the latter you really need to

know, has the take care clause had been violated? to a level that would justify high crimes and misdemeanors? and i appreciate so much my riend, andrew mccarthy's, book regarding impeachment where he lays out him that peachment was intended to be a political issue. the founders did not want itch peoplement to be like -- impeachment to be like a criminal case where the prosecution has to prove a case beyond a reasonable doubt. it is a mechanism by which we avoid revolutions and military coups, as happened in countries around the world. here we've not had to have ever, thank god, a military coup or another revolution

since 1776. we've had massive movements for which we're grateful, like the abolitionist movement that got rid of the atrocity of slavery, led mainly by christian churches, the civil rights movement, of course the leader, dr. timate leader, was reverend martin luther king jr., ordained christian minister. so these movements have not required revolution, have not required military coup, because the founders created something called impeachment. and according to andrew's book, sorry, i can't do it the justice it deserves, but basically this is a political mechanism to allow people to move from office someone who may not have violated a criminal statute beyond randal

doubt, but -- a reasonable doubt, but more than half of the country, more than half of those representatives elected in the country believe that he should be removed. then we avoid a revolution, a coup, those kinds of things. this article from hoover institute goes on, the deferred action for parents of americans, is a set of executive branch directives giving some four million illegal aliens who have given birth to children in the united states, what the order is called -- what the order calls, legal presence. even though they're here in violation of the law. this legal presence entitles dapa beneficiaries to work permits, a picture i.d., driver licenses -- driver's licenses, obamacare, medicare and other social welfare benefits. until the 2014 election,

president obama repeatedly and emphatically stated he did not have authority to issue such an order without congressional action. then, when he didn't like the results of an election, he went ahead and did it anyway. he had said, i'm not a monarch, i can't just do these things. and when he didn't like the results of the election, he decided to go ahead and be a monarch and do them anyway. the article goes on, 26 states have sued the federal government to challenge the legality of dapa. the courts below held that the orders violate the administrative procedures act, because they were issued without public notice and comment. as is required for agency actions with the effect of law, and because -- effective law, and because of the immigration and nationality act, by adding the take care clause to the questions presented, the court

is taking care that the constitutional dimensions of the case will not be swamped by the administrative law details. but for most people, including most lawyers, the take care clause is a great unknown. uncharted territory. so what is the take care clause, what does it mean? the take care clause, found in article 2 of the constitution, the executive power article, is comprised of only nine words. it says, the president shall, quote, take care that the laws be faithfully executed, unquote. but an understanding of those nine words requires an appreciation of the roots in english history. like many other structural features of the united states constitution, the take care clause derives from the long struggle between parliament and the crown. over the extent of prerogative

powers, that is, the monarch's asserted powers to create laws or otherwise to act unilaterally. absolute monarchs absolute monarchs rule by whim. what they sagos. even before parliament existed, wever, the barons of england insisted that monarchs rule in accordance with law rather than mere executive whim or decree. 1199-1260 a.d., was a major offenders against the rule of law. the arbitrarily increased taxes, abused the king's court, ssered soldiers for military misadventures, foreign and domestic, and hanged innocent people in wales. things came to a head in 1215 at

runny meade. faced with e, insurrection, he agreed to the great charter which established the principle that the king is not the law unto himself. even the king must act through settled law to bind his subjects. thus began a centuries-long ruggle between law and royal prerogative. the term prerogative refers to powers invested in the executive that are not governed by law. john locke, who was read by so many of our founders and discussed during our nation's founding, john locke defined the time in his second treatise -- in his "second treatise on government," he said this, quote, this power to act according to discretion for the public good without the prescription of law and

sometimes even against it is that which is called prerogative. unquote. the king's prerogative powers included the pardon, the powers of war and peace, power to create and fill public offices and the power to dissolve the parliament. all these he could do without the need for statutes passed by parliament and statutes passed by parliament could not touch, limit, or regulate these prerog ty powers. only ative powers are not cull inconsistent with constitutional government. under the constitution, the president has certain defined prerogatives, such as pardon pow and the veto which are committed to the president's discretion. of course we know the prerogative of veto can be overridden by congress so it's not an ultimate prerogative. but much of the

constitutionalism consists with replacing prerogative with law. the framers of the u.s. constitution carefully reflected on the various prerogative powers, claimed their exercise -- claimed or exercised by the english king, and granted, deny, or limiting those powers when creating article 2, executive. now the early controversies over prerogative powers left one of the most dangerous prerogative powers asserted by english monarchs was the proclamation power. that's the power to create new law without parliamentary approval. the term modern americans would use for proclamation is executive orders. disputes over the proclamation power came to the fore during he tudor dynasty, 1485-1603. henry viii believed his royal

proclamations should have the force of law as, quote, though they were made by act of parliament. the great 18th century historian and philosopher, david hume, later called this, quote, a total subversion of the english constitution, unquote. after henry's death, parliament repealed the act of proclamations. the struggle over prerogative accelerated under the stewart kings prior to the glorious rev lugs of 1688. james i was an ar dent believer in the divine right of kings. he wrote a book on the topic shortly before he ascended to the english throne called "the true law of free monarchies." and -- in james' 1 -- in james 1's view, kings are unrestrained by law their authority comes

from god and therefore the king is only accountable to god and never to man or law. james i issued a royal proclamation prohibiting, quote, new buildings in and around london. and, quote, the making of starch of wheat. unquote. the legality of these orders was tested in case for proclamation, lord ellsmere, the royalist jurist, argued that the court hould maintain the power prerogative of the king and in cases in which there's no authority, the judges should leave it to the king according to his wisdom. chief justice koch, whose whiggish constitutionalism later informed the views of american framers held that the king could not lawfully change any part of the common law nor create any

offense by his proclamations which was not an offense before without parliament. he concluded, quote, the law of england is divided into three parts, common law, statute law, and custom. but the king's proclamation is none of them. chief justice koch reiterated the point in the case of dispensing power. he observed that the king does have some prerogative powers, for example, a royal pardon rants mercy notwithstanding. but instead he insisted the king's dispensing power can never be used to annul statutes. if the king attempted to dispense with a statute, he held, the king's effort would be

void, for an act of parliament may absolutely bind the king. and parenthetically, of course, since our laws were derived through this knowledge of what was done here, the framers believed that the law would absolutely bind the king that lives in the white house. now, the principles of the case of proclamations and the case of nonabstante are part of the american tradition. the steel seizure case of 1952, our separation of powers decision, held that the president cannot make law. that is exclusively congress' job. in other words, executive orders have the force of law only when implementing statutes, treaties and the constitution.

notably, many, if not all these controversies over the reach of royal prerogative arose when the that prior precedent monarchs had used in relatively modest and noncontroversial ways as elizabeth i did against the spanish ar maw da and stretched it to cover significant usurpation of powers against the will of parliament, that's continued to be the power in american separation of power struggles, including the one over dapa. the very good article, it goes on and discusses other concepts, but dan stein had a good article regarding why the united states vs. texas is the most important case the court will decide this year. according to stein, the supreme

court's decided to review certain elements in united states vs. texas. he go, further down he said the most dramatic of these actions were two program december sined to grant de facto amnesty and work authorizations to an estimated 4.7 million illegal aliens. the first of these amnesties was an expansion of deferred action for childhood arrivals, daca. a 2012 executive action that's thus far benefited some 800,000 illegal aliens who arrived in the united states when they were under the age of 16 or at least, i'll add parenthetically, based on what i observed at the border, who said they were under 16. been there all hours of the day and night on the border, and beyond n astonished

mildly amused, being amused that people who clearly could grow full beards would claim to be under 16. i've seen them in the middle of the night when a group of them would have to go through being processed by the border patrol, reading their little pieces of paper they had and exchanging, each of them showing this is what i have for identification purposes. i was amused how their identities seemed to be interchangeable because they could pass them among each other and decide which identity each wanted to take. thathis article points out u.s. district judge andrew heinen issued a temporary injux

halting implementation upheld by the u.s. court of appeals for the fifth circuit. the obama administration appealed that decision to the supreme court and they will hear arguments. that will be on monday. while heinen's injunction was based on the government's failure to comply with requirements of the administrative procedures act, the high court indicated it will also consider whether the executive amnesty programs violate the take care clause of the constitution. i also want to insert here, since i know the intellectual integrity and brilliance of judge an draw heinen, i have not talked to him in a number of years, but when i read the order that he drafted, he could have just had a one page, one paragraph order implementing the injunction, but it was lengthy and thorough. and i knew what judge heinen was doing, having been a judge and

chief justice. i understood exactly. there are types when you don't want the lawyers, as smart as they may be, to misinterpret the actions you've taken and you ow that you are capable of writing a good law review article, as judge heinen was more than capable, and myself won awards for law review article. i knew as a judge what i suspected judge heinen felt in this case, this could end up before the supreme court and i don't want any misunderstanding or some court coming back down the way that says, oh, i probably meant this, or intended to do that, when that was not my meaning and it was not my intent. o judge heinen issued a very

eloquent and lengthy order so that even some of the normal majority of the u.s. supreme court would have to really twist and abuse his words in order to get the wrong meaning of what he was doing. he laid out his legal basis, he laid out the facts, and he made very clear that both the law and the facts supported what he did and the reasons for which he did them. so it should be a lesson, i know as a judge, often it's easier for the litigant, prevailing litigant, the way it usually go, they supply an order with their motion, with their petition for injunction, here's the order, and it's a lot easier for a judge just to sign that and go on. but on important matters, i hope other judges who truly

appreciate the constitution and the -- the constitution the way judge heinen does, that they will take the time to write their own order as he did, scrupulously sew, and i hope -- scrupulously so, and i hope come monday, during and after oral arguments in this case, the judges on the supreme court, some of which may not be quite as smart as judge heinen intellectually, that they will at least give credence to the trouble that he endured in order to write his own order and make sure his legal reasoning was as clear as judge heinen made it. well done. good and faithful judge heinen. this article says these two newly announced programs, talking about dapa and daca, nearly 40% of the nation's

estimated 12 million illegal aliens would be granted legal presence and permission to work in the united states. according to the analysis by the policy institute and organization generally supportive of president obama's immigration policy, combined with the 40% of illegal aliens covered by daca, daca plus, and dapa, the other policy direct is issued by secretary johnson would have exempted 87% of all illegal aliens from enforcement action. that is extraordinary. the president doesn't like the law, he says, i have the power to exclude certain people from prosecution and, hey, i can issue pardons and specific -- in specific cases, is so i'm specifically making 87% of those illegaly in the country

legal. might as well pronounce the next president king or queen if they're going to have this kind of power. rther down in the article, mr. stein says, to the contrary, congress has taken explicit actions to limit the discretionary authority of the executive in the area of immigration enforcement. in the illegal immigration reform and immigration relief act of 1996, the congress passed and president clinton signed, congress indisputedly intended, quote, to prevent delay in the removal of illegal aliens, unquote. under the i.n.a. congress has imnumerated two mandatory statutory responsibilities to the secretary of homeland

security. the, quote, power and duty, unquote, to administer and enforce all laws relating to immigration and the mandatory duty to guard against, quote, the illegal entry of aliens, unquote, under the obama administration, neither secretary johnson nor his predecessor, jan et napoleon, have faithfully -- janet napoleon, have faith compli complied with these duty -- faithfully complied with these duties. the secretary has affirmatively shirked those responsibilities and blatantly attempted to substitute presidential policies in the place of a comprehensive system of constitutionally enacted federal laws that define who may enter and remain in the united states and under what conditions. needless to say, when the supreme court delivers its ruling in june, the implications for u.s.

immigration policy will be profound. at stake is nothing less than the entire premise of more than a century of immigration policy. namely, the legitimacy of laws that restrict immigration in order to protect the social, economic and security interests of the american people. let me insert here, let's look at who is most harmed by these vast amnesty programs of millions and millions of people to compete with people legally in america for the jobs. you've got over 94 million americans that are so tired of looking for work and being turned down for jobs, they quit looking, perhaps some of those 94 million might should be given the chance. to have those jobs. and of course we know the way free markets are supposed to

work, that labor is paid what the free market would require. but when uconn have a loot the free market -- convalute the free market by bringing people in, and i do mean bringing them in, because border patrolmen get them across the river and then homeland security becomes logistics and ships them wherever they want to go in the united states. or they may be so callous as to just give them a notice, whether they're a killer, as has happened here lately, and say, by the way, come back to court sometime in the future, for which they of course do not return. the article ent, concludes, even those justices of the court who might agree with the president's views on immigration policy generally should appreciate the president setting -- precedent-setting

decision they would be making by allowing the president to run rough shod over the constitutional separation of powers doctrine. those who support granting amnesty to illegal aliens should recognize that a ruling n favor of his vast new claims to power to change the law would be a victory. it would emasculate the ability of congress to set immigration limits and standards, and it would render the courts irrelevant in ensuring the enforcement of the very same. so, this is a big case coming up. supreme court also is having oral arguments on whether or order the sident can violation of deeply held religious christian convictions and order folks like little sisters of the poor, who have

dedicated their lives to poverty and helping those less fortunate, they want them to violate their religious convictions, as was made clearly during oral arguments, then the administration ought to be able to order any americans, including churches, according to them, to violate their christian beliefs, because after all, they're the government. they work for the president. sure they can order people to violate their christian beliefs. i mean, for heaven's sake, these people have no sense of history. they don't even know that one of the things that just infuriated and -- americans and caused a revolution was a king believing that he could just order people to violate their religious convictions. that's why religion is the

first thing mentioned in our bill of rights. it's been so miss construed -- misconstrued. but the government was to never do what the king of england did when he ordered a new church, the church of england, ordered the official 's church. they never saw it as a problem to have different denominations agree to pray in the name of jesus and to have same type prayers begin each day in the continental congress and then again when we started our first congresses under our constitution, that was never a problem. they knew they were not violating the first amendment because many of them helped craft it. we're not establishing a religion and we're not going to prohibit the free exercise thereof.

so the court has before it, with eight justices sitting, after the untimely death of a real american hero, who is no doubt already -- who has no doubt already heard, as john quincy adams said when he stood downstairs before the supreme court, he prayed that the justices that were already deceased of the supreme court would have already heard those words, well done, good and faithful servant. enter now into the joy of the lord. that's what john quincy adams said specifically before the supreme court in the hearing on the amistad case downstairs, when the supreme court was here in this building. i have no doubt justice scalia's already heard that. he's been a very faithful servant. standing up for religious liberty. so we'll see what the other eight justices do.

and then we will see whether or t politics has become so extraordinarily the purpose of the supreme court, rather than the constitution, because clearly, you know, there's information that's passed and tten to the supreme court, apparently it occurred during the decision on whether or not hold on the 24-hour the bankruptcy order that violated bankruptcy law, violated the constitution, and god bless justice ginsburg when she put that 24-hour hold on an unconstitutional, illegal order . and according to what one of the justices told me, without going into detail, the white

house submitted information hint the scenes that if they left that 24-hour hold in place, that everybody that had any kind of job related to the automobile industry would lose their job and it would all be the supreme court's fault if they left the 24-hour hold in place. certainly appears they got information that affected chief ustice roberts and it looked like he changed a dissenting opinion into a majority opinion in the obamacare case. this is serious. and this will determine whether or not we're going to follow the constitution. and i am so pleased to be here on the house floor, with my friend from south carolina, recognize the former governor for such time as he may consume. mr. sanford: i appreciate it very much. thank you. i just want to borrow maybe five minutes worth of your

time. just to talk about this issue of puerto rico. you've touched on it different ways. you were talking about constitutional issues just a moment ago. and i want to follow up on that thought. because i think that what's occurring here has far bigger consequences than we may realize. and i say that at a couple different levels. one is, charles dickens once talked about christmas past, christmas present and christmas still to come. i think that this is a snapshot of christmas to come. if we don't watch out here in the united states. as you well know, as my colleague well knows from texas, you know, we're at a financial tipping point. the likes of which our civilization has never seen before. we've never before been at this level indebtedness in a peace-time situation. we're, again, about to find ourselves between a rock and a hard place. which is very much the story of puerto rico as it relates to their financial situation. and so you think about the number of 2025, that in

basically less than 10 years we're only going to have money to pay for interest and entitlements and nothing else. you think about the way in which interest payments are, by congressional budget numbers, expected to balloon from around $200 billion a year to $800 billion a year. the fact that we're going to spend more on interest payments than we will on defense. you can walk through a lot of different numbers that say that we are about to be at a profound bad spot, which is, again, the way in which puerto rico, i think, is for telling -- foretelling. it really talks about the fact that they went out, spent too much, obligated themselves too much, made promises that they couldn't deliver on, and so we find ourselves in this pickle. i would also say this. this is a -- an exercise in free markets. if you think about the notion free markets, and what that means, i mean, what we would agree on, as conservatives, is

that there's certain absolutes. the rule of law and private property rights and market-based principles. thomas friedman talks about a flat world and how a kid in texas or in south carolina competes with kids in shanghai or in new delhi in ways that they never did before. and so if you have a corporate rate that's too high, not surprisingly, corporations aren't going to come to your island. if you have a minimum wage that doesn't fit with the prevailing wage rate of that area, corporations or businesses, local and small, may not be able to start up and compete. you think about so many of the different building blocks that make for a vibrant economy, this is, again, a reminder of how important those things are. , i look at this and i'm perplexed. i'm really struggling with this issue. i looked just a little while

ago, puerto rican bondses are still trading between 65 cents and 70 cents on the dollar, even though we have a pure math trap. which is to say financial markets are still betting that in some form or another, those bond holders are going to get bailed out. that's on the one hand. on the other hand, you look at the plight of the people in puerto rico, you look at what might come next, i empathize with the leadership of how do you deal with this issue? but i want to go back to one theme that i think is central to both of us. and that's the rule of law. , i actually pulled up a bond a general obligation bond. this was a 2012 issue improvement refunding bonds. commonwealth of puerto rico, $400 million in size. and it says, on the front page, the first page, it says, the bonds are general obligation of the commonwealth. the good faith credit and taxing power of the commonwealth will are irrevocably pledged for the prompt payment of the principal and interest on the bonds. the constitution of puerto rico provides public debt of the

commonwealth, which includes bonds, what not, what not, what not, front page. the issue of what's occurring in puerto rico has everything to do with the sanctity of the rule of law in this country. it has far-reaching implications, well beyond the 3 1/2 million people that make up the island of puerto rico. but really, i mean, the whole of the united states, the whole of -- you know, we have a municipal market in this country of about $2.7 trillion in size, and what comes next, because if they can change it in the front page of what was a $400 million issue for puerto rico, can they change it for illinois? can they change it for california? bviously territories and states are very different. what we're worried about is a public exodus from puerto rico. we're worried about a lot of different ramifications. is that not true if illinois was to end up in a real problem spot financially in terms of what comes next. so i think it has real

inchations -- implications there. i think it's a reminder of how important that we look at the ingredients of growth. one of my problems with this bill is to stay symmetrical. the cram down provision, section 3, is absolute and certain. this certainty of economic reforms on that island is not certain. it's asymmetrical in that form. so i look at the jones act. i was in transportation hearing yet and it was pointed out that the cost of delivering a 20-foot container from the east coast of the united states to puerto rico is double the cost of what it would cost to deliver that same container to the dominican republic or to haiti. i look at the corporate tax there. they used to have a very competitive corporate tax rate in the island of puerto rico that federal clause lapsed, now they're not so competitive. why don't we have it in this bill to change it? if we're going to have a cramdown provision which deals with the sanctity rule of law,

general obligation bonds what they do or don't mean, why wouldn't we have incorporated as well other provisions that could make the island more competitive. for instance, we have a bill on the minimum wage. if you look at what's happening in american samoa, or the northern mariana islands, other territories of the united states, what we did as a congress is to say, you know what the prevailing wage of that region, the psk -- pacific is not the same as yo whaud see in the united states. let's give them discretion in how they set their minimum wage. our bill says the same thing. the prevailing wage of the caribbean basin is not the same as the rest of the united states. why not give them that option so they can be more come pet ty as they compete with haiti and the dominican republic and other islands down that way. i'm going to continue to study this issue but i am genuinely concerned about what it could

mean. i want to take one second -- can i take one more second? to read the cramdown provision because in the bill, it goes under title 3 to -- it incorporates 1129-b of the code, of the federal code. let me just read that so it's on the record, notwithstanding section 501-a of this title, if all the applicable requirements of the section other than the paragraph a are met with respect to the plan, the court on request of the proponents of the plan shall confirm the plan, not withstanding the requirements of such paragraph if the plan does not discriminate unfairly and is fair and equitable with respect to each class of claims or interest under the plan. i could go on. it's greek. it's written in legalese. but the point is, this bill has an absolute cramdown provision which is to open up new

territory with regard to how territories handle debt and i think we need to be very, very, very wary of that provision and at minimum, we're going to include something like that, include wholesale changes that would make the island more competitive so they can pay off their debts. if you don't do anything to improve the economy, we're going to end up back in the same problem 12 months from now or 12 years from now. mr. gohmert: the gentleman is exactly right. it seems like the big push is to resolve the issue of what is owed to the bondholders who invested money and apparently they're the ones running commercials in some people's districts about, oh, don't do a bailout because they want to get the full money on what they not sure i understand that. but as my friend pointed out, we can't be sure that there will be

any reforms, and i know some of our friends would think, well, there's such massive some yment, one cure in places to help with unemployment is to lower the minimum wage and get people to work. that's being suggested. but in puerto rico, i was reading that for a typical family of three, if someone were -- worked a 40-hour-per-week minimum wage job at the current minimum wage, before it's lowered like some people are advocate, the take home is under $1,200. however the welfare payments they'd be entitled to typically on average would be about $1,00 a month. so sometimes lowering the minimum wage would be a solution but in puerto rico, where, and of course, and i think it's totally appropriate and fair, as

the founders said if they don't elect one representative to the body that makes taxes, then they have no right to make taxes on us. so in puerto rico which is also true of guam, samoa, mariana islands, any territory where they elect a delegate or they don't elect a full voting representative, because those come to the states, they don't pay any federal income tax. wow, d in my mind that, puerto rico could be the american hong kong. they have all the federal benefits, and i read one estimate that 20% of all of the income made by people in puerto rico is actually welfare benefits, paid by people in the some of the towns, i saw a chart, i think the highest was right at 46% of

the local community work for government and you know, you've got communities, 28,000, 35,000 where 40% of the whole population works for the government. something has to be done about that. and our friend, fellow republican luis bertuno, got elected governor and he could see the handwriting on the wall, we have dwt to get our government down and under control because if we expect anybody to help us at all we've got to show we're able to take care of our own problems and he was promptly fired at the next election for trying to get the massive government bureaucracy under control. that hadn't been dealt with. there's no indication it will actually be dealt with. president obama will make all the appointments of the board we're talking about, that will have oversight, but those will come from recommendations,

minority leader pelosi and speaker ryan, majority leader mcconnell, minority leader reid, and the president will make what will be the deciding vote on close calls. there's no asurenses that there will be reform in this -- in these areas. as my friend, senator inhofe from oklahoma, puerto rico has the only area in the world where all our military branches could come together and do tactical beaches, storm the beach type things, and that that was taken away and that land, 17,000 or so acres, is owned by the department of interior. puerto rico apparently is part of this deal they don't want to sell any puerto rican land but they are willing to let the department of interior sell that land and give that money to

puerto rico. we're not giving them direct payments but the department of interior part of this deal is going to be selling -- >> if the gentleman would yield for one last second, and i'll leave it with you. you hit on luis fortuno. i worked with him in a former role in government. mr. sanford: you're absolutely creek. what -- correct. what he tried to do was brave in political terms, courageous. he played a price for it in the political world but i think that the record will show he was trying to do the right thing on that front. i think it also, what's happened here is a reminder of how if everybody is in charge, nobody is in charge. and too much of what we see, again, i absolutely empathize with the plight that leadership finds itself in in terms of how do you manage competing interests of the need to have financial stability on an island like puerto rico but how to you manage that with the precedent it might set for other states and other territories and all

notion of financial responsibility. and i just -- i see your time is about to wind up so i yield back to you since it was your time. thank you for letting me borrow a few miamis of it. mr. gohmert: mr. speaker, i realize my time has expired, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the entleman yields. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? mr. gohmert: i move we do now hereby adjourn. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on the motion of adjournment. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the motion is adopted. accordingly, the house stands adjourned until noon on monday

ext the chair: the house is in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for the consideration of h.r. 2666 which the clerk will report by title. the clerk: a bill to prohibit the federal communications commission from regulating rates charged for broadband internet access service. the chair: pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as read the first time. the gentleman from oregon, mr. walden, and the gentlewoman from california, ms. eshoo, each will control 30 minutes. the chair now recognizes the

gentleman from oregon. mr. walden: thank you very much, mr. chairman. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for such time. mr. walden: mr. chairman, i rise in support of h.r. 2666. this is the no rate regulation of broadband internet access act. from the first indication of the federal communications commission intended to reclassify broadband internet access service as a title 2 service, subject to utility, imagine that, utility regulation, the subcommittee on communications and technology has made it a priority to ensure that the f.c.c. bureaucracy never has the authority to actually get in and then micromanage and regulate rates. the internet is a model of innovation, flourishing under decades of light touch or no touch regulation. that's how it's flourished, mr. chairman. in recent years, as the f.c.c. has repeatedly attempted to regulate the management of internet traffic, the potential reach of those regulations has grown, prompting concerns that the f.c.c. would retreat to the

world of rate regulation that typified the monopoly telephone era. . the f.c.c. announced in early 2015, mr. chairman, that it would reclassify the internet as a ue title-style service as -- utility-style service, rules that are challenged in the courts, i might add. i will address the most common attacks against this legislation that we are going to attempt to quote-unquote gut the net neutrality rules. that simply is not the case. we are supportive of clear, bright line rules of the road for i.s.p.'s and the way they treat internet traffic. in fact, last year i released a discussion draft bill along with chairman upton and senator thune that would codify those very rules. what we don't support is the use of outdated, ill-suited regulations to achieve those

goals. this bill isn't intended to touch the net neutrality rules. in fact, an amendment i offered up in committee markup goes so far to make an explicit exemption to make sure it would not impact the f.c.c.'s work to ban prioritization. what this bill does is prohibit the f.c.c. from regulated the amount charged to a consumer by an i.s.b. for provision of a broadband service, a fact made clear by our definitions. there's another objection, mr. chairman, we heard repeatedly and that is the f.c.c. chosen to forebear in title 2 in that the chairman of the f.c.c. had promised not to regulate rates anyway. so this bill is really unnecessary. again, this is simply not the case. the f.c.c. did forebear from various sections from title 2 but the authority to regulate rates through enforcement is still very much on the table. in addition, while chairman

wheeler did promise before our subcommittee and multiple other committees before the congress that he would not regulate rates, there was nothing to bind him or his successors to that commitment. the need for the certainty of a statutory ban on rate regulation became even clearer a few weeks ago when the bill's sponsor, representative kinzinger, asked the chairman of the f.c.c., chairman wheeler, whether he believed the f.c.c. should have the authority to regulate rates. chairman wheeler's response, yes, sir, quote-unquote. well, given the philosophy of the chairman himself, it's clearly more pressing than ever that this bill becomes law. the f.c.c. cannot and should not be able to regulate the rates charged by i.s.p.'s to their customers. this sort of regulatory overhang clouds the decisionmaking of providers and dissuedes them from offering innovative, pro-consumer pricing plans and service

offerings less the commission comes back after the fact and penalize them. take t-mobile service as a prime example. consumers are able to access video offered by any participant in the program without the data counting toward their monthly usage limits or charges. edge providers win because their content is viewed more often. the service provider wins because they actually attract more customers. it's called the marketplace. it's innovation in the market prays responding to what con-- marketplace responding to what consumers want. the consumers win because they content. o access i'm not here to advocate one company over another. this is what entrepreneurship is all about. under the opaque rules of the f.c.c., t-mobile had no way of knowing whether this sort of

binge on pricing scheme would violate the commission's rules. they didn't know. while t-mobile has taken this risk, many providers may choose not to do so ultimately depriving customers of choices they otherwise would have. you see, everybody's a little afraid, does this chairman or the next chairman come back after the fact and say, well, you know, that's really not something we think is too dandy to do so we're going to penalize you. it's called after the fact regulation. so it's an unfortunate core lear to this chapter in internet history, the same kind of flip-flop we're concerned on rate regulation is exactly what we've seen is expected. you see, chairman wheeler was quote-unquote ok with it until he decided maybe not. as a former business owner myself, i can tell you can't make business decisions based on a hope and a prayer of your regulator. i was actually regulated by the f.c.c. i knew the rules. i followed them. they were clear. they were bright line.

in an incredibly open marketplace, can you imagine the lack of clarity and the ability to go back after the fact and in affect rate regulate? this will stifle competition, innovation and consumer choice. finally, i'd like to address charges that this bill would leave customers helpless overcharged or worse by i.s.p.'s. we'd all share that concern. we don't want that. and this bill provides protection. the notion that the f.c.c., an agency that didn't have authority over internet provider rates until last year -- until last year -- is the only line of defense between customers and fraud is frankly silly. it's a silly claim. customers have gotten along just fine without the aid of the f.c.c. regulating rates. and this notion that the f.c.c. is the only cop on the beat for consumers would come as a surprise, real surprise to many states' attorneys general and consumer advocates across the nation.

all those protections, fraud, abuse, still prevails out there. this bill is a carefully tailored piece of legislation that's targeted one thing, one thing, mr. chairman, that's unnecessary bureaucratic washington-based rate regulation. we use the most narrow definition inserted rules of construction and made specific exemptions all in an attempt to address the concerns that were raised by the witnesses in our hearings that we held, mr. chairman, members at markup and others who participated in the process. we listened to all of those voices say, how do we make it right, how do we make it narrow to a bureaucracy that wants to expand and grow and micromanage and rate regulate? we sought unintended consequences unlike the f.c.c. who have the broad and furthest reaching scope. imagine that, mr. chairman, from a bureaucracy that writes rules they would write rules that are broadly written so they have more power for

themselves. in fact, many of the changes we made to the bill at full committee markup were inspired by an amendment offered by representative matsui of california, drawing on her suggested changes, we amended the bill to be a more targeted draft. felt it would not have the prohibition this bill narrowly calls for. not just before the fact tariffing where they say you can charge $7, that's it, that would be tariffing after the fact. but after the fact and say, oh, by the way, whatever you're charged, we think it was too much or too little or whatever. well, i'm disappointed many of my colleagues across the aisle can't support this bill. it wasn't for lack of trying or lack of hearings or modifying our underlying text. i nonetheless strongly believe this is an essential step in

having a vibrant internet ecosystem that prompts and promotes new jobs and investment like no other service. the last thing we want to throw on there is the cold water of washington bureaucracy after the fact regulation that will stifle compeition and innovation that is so benefited consumers in this great internet economy which we find ourselves. with that, mr. chairman, i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from oregon reserves the balance of his time. the gentlewoman from california is recognized. ms. eshoo: good morning, mr. speaker. rise in opposition to h.r. 2666, and i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized is recognized. ms. eshoo: thank you, mr. speaker. today we're debating a bill that the majority has tiled the no rate regulation of broadband

internet access act. t sounds tariff. -- it sounds terrific. on the surface, it does something we both support this. we both support this and what we support is very clear. prevent the f.c.c. from setting the monthly rate that customers pay for internet access service , but in reality this bill is about undermining the f.c.c.'s authority to protect consumers and ensure a free and open internet for all. i listened very carefully to the chairman, whom i respect, who's my friend, talking about innovation, talking about what the effects that that has on so much that we do. i represent the innovation capital of our country and the world, silicon valley, so i think that i understand

something about innovation and the ingredients that make it work. as the ranking member of the subcommittee, i have made it very clear that i do not support setting rates for customers to pay on internet access nor do any of my democratic colleagues on the committee. in fact, and the chairman left this out, the chairman left this out. in fact, during the subcommittee and full committee markup of this bill, i offered an air-tight one-page amendment right here, right here, one-page amendment to codify that the f.c.c. will permanently forebear from setting the rates that customers pay for internet access. it is air tight. it's as clear as a bell, but it was rejected twice. now, why would the majority

reject exactly what they say they are seeking? it's a good question. it's a rhetorical question but it should be raised. i think it's because this bill is more about than the f.c.c. setting the rates that customers pay for internet access. the f.c.c. is the cop on the beat in the communications marketplace. that means the f.c.c. has the responsibility to keep watch over the companies that provide our cell phone, cable and internet services to ensure that everyone is treated fairly , and i think in the absence of the following, not one consumer organization in the country supports the bill that's on the floor because it's overly broad. the definition of rate regulation in this bill leaves the door open for courts to strike down the f.c.c.'s

authority to protect consumers and act in the public interest that they interpret any of its actions as impacting broadband internet rates. that's what this bill does. that's what we object to. what the -- ect to essentially what the title of the bill, no rate regulation of broadband internet access. these protections include prohibiting internet service providers, i.s.p.'s, from capping the amount of data that customers can use, outlawing pay for privacy agreements where consumers have to pay fees to avoid having their data collected and sold to thirt parties, en-- third parties, enforcing net neutrality and reviewing mergers that increase consolidation and limit choice in the broadband internet market. and as i said a moment ago,

there's no wonder this bill is opposed by over 70 public interest groups, including the national hispanic media coalition, the consumer federation of america and the national consumer law center. and the white house has said that it will veto the bill. we could have come here with the very simple -- with a very simple bill that essentially was what my amendment stated, no rate regulation, but that wasn't -- that's what the majority says they're for but the bill goes way beyond that. i want to make it clear to my colleagues and to the american people that may be tuned into this debate. this bill in its broadness is an attack on consumers and an attack on the f.c.c.'s net neutrality rules. now, that's not a surprise because the majority has never supported that, and that's why i urge my colleagues to oppose h.r. 2666, and i reserve the

balance of my time. i'd also like to ask, mr. speaker, for unanimous consent that three letters from consumer organizations be placed in the record. the chair: that request will be covered by general leave, and the gentlewoman from california reserves the balance of her time. the gentleman from oregon is recognized. mr. walden: mr. chairman, it's now my honor to recognize the gentlelady from tennessee, the vice chairman of the full energy and commerce committee and a very important member of our subcommittee, mrs. blackburn. the chair: the gentlewoman from tennessee is recognized for how much? two minutes. mrs. blackburn: thank you, mr. chairman. and i appreciate the opportunity to come to the floor today and stand in support of this bill. it is the right step, and the gentlelady from california references the amendment that she had wanted but her amendment was not exactly what that bill is, and what we are seeking to do is to encourage the f.c.c. to make good on the

promise that they have made. even chairman wheeler, we have in march, 2015, he was speaking at the mobile world conference in barcelona. he was talking about net neutrality and rules and regulations and he said, this is not regulating the internet. regulating the internet is rate regulation which we don't do. . whoops. they do. that's what they are trying to do. there is a difference in what the gentlelady was seeking to do in committee, not have tariffs or regulations, but if they had done it we would have to get into a process of trying to undo. that's what people don't like. they don't like that kind of mess. what they want is something very explicit. that is what mr. kin singer's bill does -- kinzinger's bill

does. it says f.c.c., you cannot, you shall not, you will not do rate regulation. it is not what the american people want to see. it is what the f.c.c. has promised they will not do. so what we are doing is helping a federal agency keep their word and keep their promise and not get in to rate regulation. of course we all know that what they would like to do is regulate the internet so they can tax the internet. so they can then come in and set all the rates. so they can then come in and assign priority and value to content. it is a commerce issue. it is a free speech issue. it is an issue for the american people who want to make certain that the information service they have known and appreciated and utilize every day in the

virtual marketplace is not going to be regulated by a federal government agency. i yield back. the chair: the gentlewoman from tennessee yields back the balance of her time. the gentlewoman from california is recognized. ms. eshoo: thank you, mr. speaker. i would note that the f.c.c. chairman is not a member of congress. it is only congress that can write a statute, and the amendment that i offered codified, codified that there would be no rate regulation of the internet. i now would like to yield three minutes to the distinguished ranking member of the full committee, mr. pallone of new jersey. the chair: the gentleman from new jersey is recognized for three minutes. mr. pallone: thank you. i want to thank my colleague from california, the ranking member of our subcommittee. today we are considering a deceptively simple bill, h.r. 2666. the bill states that the f.c.c.

may not regulate rates for broadband internet access service, but i urge members on both sides of the aisle to not fall for this rhetoric and misinformation. just because this bill is short in length does not mean it is narrow in scope. it is designed to gut the f.c.c. because as experts have pointed out, the definitions in the bill for rate regulation could mean almost anything. while the republicans claim that they intend the bill to be narrow, we have heard over and over that their draft would swallow vast sections of the communications act. most notably the bill could undermine the f.c.c.'s ability to protect could be sumers -- consumers. democrats repeatedly offered to help improve this bill, but make no mistake there was not an negotiation. we offered suggestions but were rebuffed time and again. in fact, we raised concerns from the beginning that the original bill failed to define rate regulation. then at the 11th hour the republicans provided their own take it or leave it definition with no democratic input. and this is not negotiating.

the result of this one-sided conversation is the definition of rate regulation that simply confirms our worst fears. the definition is so broad that it effectively would gut the agency. now, we have said repeatedly we do not want the f.c.c. to set rates, but we can't support a bill that undermines the f.c.c.'s core mission. we can't support a bill that prevents the agency from acting in the interest of the public. we can't support a bill that prevents the agency from protecting consumers from discriminatory practice. and we certainly cannot support a bill that undercuts the f.c.c.'s net neutrality rules. the republicans have rebuffed all our efforts to narrow h.r. 2666 so the consumers are not harmed. if we are all serious about passing a narrow bill accomplishing these goals would not be hard. our collective interest should be aligned. that clearly is not the intent of my republican colleagues. so i urge members to cast a vote against h.r. 2666. i yield back.

thank you, mr. speaker. the chair: the gentleman from new jersey nng yields back the balance of his time of the the gentleman from oregon is recognized. mr. walden: may inquire you how much time each side has? the chair: the majority leader has 19 minutes remaining. the minority has 22 1/2 minutes remaining. mr. walden: at this point, mr. chairman, i would recognize the author of this legislation, very distinguished member of our subcommittee on telecommunications and great patriot for our country, mr. kinzinger of illinois. the chair: for how much? mr. walden: two minutes. the chair: the gentleman from illinois is recognized for two minutes. mr. kinzinger: thank you, mr. chairman. thank you to the committee. thank you to the other side of the aisle and even though this is something that we are going to put through and would love to have a lot more support from the other side of the aisle. we do appreciate the working relationship. let me just say, this is, in my mind, very simple. the f.c.c. when they, in essence, chose to reclassify broadband internet access

service as a common carrier, that gave them the classification, ability to regulate rates of private companies. and understanding this it was a concern as we looked around and said, well, we want to make sure the f.c.c. doesn't have the power to regulate the rates charged for internet access. if you look back in the history of this country and really what technology and what the internet has been able to do for jobs and for economic growth and for everything along that line, it's all been because it's free of government regulations. let as you put this into law that the f.c.c. shouldn't have the authority. in a couple hearings the chairman wheeler, chairman of the f.c.c., was asked, do you believe you should have the right or the ability to regulate the rates charged for broadband access? he said no. i forebear that. in fact, i asked the chairman, what if we put into law a simple statement that said the f.c.c. shouldn't have that authority. i'm in basically is what he said. well, we now over the next year

kind of run into some more issues. and all of a sudden three weeks ago i asked the chairman the same question again and he admits that actually the f.c.c. should have the ability to regulate broadband internet access. this is congress simply doing its job. congress' job is to determine what authority the f.c.c. should and should not have. that's what we were invented for. that's what we were created for to determine those laws and those rules. all we are doing is taking back a little bit of power from the f.c.c. and saying, look, let's keep the internet free market. let's keep broadband free market. congress is going to have its say in this. i hope the other side of the aisle and my colleagues join me in supporting this measure. it's the right thing for our country. and it's a great first step in preserving the internet as free for future generations. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentlewoman from california is recognized. ms. eshoo: thank you, mr. speaker. i'd like to yield four minutes

to the distinguished gentleman from kentucky and just an outstanding member of the committee from kentucky, mr. yarmuth. the chair: the gentleman from kentucky is recognized for four minutes. mr. yarmuth: thank you, mr. chairman. i thank the gentlelady for yielding. as i said on wednesday during debate on the rule, the bill before us today is a vague solution in search of a nonexistent problem. while we all share concerns about the idea of broadband, it net rate regulation, chairman wheeler has made it absolutely clear that the f.c.c. will not seek to regulate those rates. since this bill is before the house anyway, i thought i would offer an amendment that would address an actual problem that can be fixed by the f.c.c. section 317 of the communications act of 1934 requires broadcasters to disclose the true identity of political advertising sponsors. the f.c.c. currently relies on an outdated 1979 staff

interpretation of the law that does not account for the dramatic changes that have taken place in our campaign system over the last six years. including the citizens united and mccutcheon decisions. but the rule makes sense. the american people ought to know who is actually trying to influence their votes. unfortunately, sponsors in today's world don't indicate who is actually paying for the add. no. we get sponsors like americans for kittens and puppies. that's not very helpful in disclosing to the american people who is trying to influence them. it would be, for instance, if somebody ran an ad for -- promoting sugarred soft drinks, and instead of coca-cola or pepsi being the actual people paying for the ad, you would have the advertising agency. this ad sponsored by owingle bye or mccann-erickson.

not very helpful to the american people. this has resulted in a major loophole in which special interest and wealthy donors can anonymously spend limitedless amounts of money to influence the outcomes of our elections. that is not what congress intended. despite having the authority to do so, the f.c.c. has refused to take action to close this loophole, my amendment by restating the original constitutional intent, would have sent a message to the f.c.c. that it is time to october. we all know how much secret money has flooded or politics. weakened accountability in government. and made it harder for voters to develop a true opinion of the individuals they will send to congress to represent them. my amendment would have helped to change that and hopefully begin to restore a minimum level of honesty in our electoral system of the the amendment was germane, within the rules of this body, and the solution it provided was well within the authority of the f.c.c. most importantly an overwhelming majority of americans, republicans, democrats, and independents, want us to do this.

they want us to reform and fix our broken campaign finance system. unfortunately, republicans on the rules committee voted against the interest of the majority of americans and blocked my amendment from coming to the floor. while they killed my amendment, i'm glad the amendment offered by my colleague, mr. lujan, will be up for consideration today. it will give us a chance to debate the lack of disclosure and transparency in campaign ads and unlike the underlying bill, it offers a specific solution to a real problem. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from kentucky yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from oregon is recognized. mr. walden: thank you, mr. chairman. i now recognize another terrific member of our subcommittee on communications and technology, the gentleman from new jersey, mr. lance, for one minute. the chair: the gentleman from new jersey is recognized for one minute. mr. lance: thank you, mr. speaker. as a member of the telecom subcommittee, i rise in strong support of mr. kin singer's bill. the inter-- kinzinger's bill. the internet has changed the economy and how every one of us

lives daily lifmente it is a great equalizer, providing open platform to expand expression and free speech. as much as any invention in history. but some un-elected officials here in washington are eager to regulate it and some in office across the country areager to tax it. we must prevent both. the prosperity and opportunity we have come to know from the internet will be compromised if internet access becomes another victim of an overwaning governmental agentcy. the apps on your mobile phone and online accounts, social sphere, and personal and professional information come not from the permission of un-elected officials but from the work of innovators who have invented this 21st century technology. they must remain empowered to continue their innovation. we cannot allow the government a foothold for internet control. i strongly support h.r. 2666. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman's time

has expired. the the gentlewoman from california is recognized. ms. eshoo: thank you, mr. speaker. i now would like to recognize the gentleman from vermont, mr. welch, a wonderful and important member of the subcommittee. how much time do you need? three minutes. the chair: the gentleman from vermont is recognized for three minutes. mr. welch: thank you, mr. speaker. i thank my ranking member on the telecom committee and the chair of the committee. there's two questions here. first is net neutrality. one of the biggest decisions that the f.c.c. made was to protect net neutrality. before they issued their order, they had literally millions of comments from people all across this country in your district and in mine, urging that the net neutrality be maintained and preserved. and the chairman and the f.c.c.

did that with their order. now, that has raised some questions as to whether the assertion of f.c.c. authority is going to result in micromanaging through regulation. that would be a legitimate concern if it were a concern. but the chairman has made it extremely clear that he has no intention whatsoever of doing any kind of rate regulation under title 2. he's not going to do it. it hasn't been done. o this bill, which is going to "prohibit rate regulation" has some significant and potentially very dangerous consequences for two things -- net neutrality and protection of consumers. we need a f.c.c. that is going to be there to protect consumers against some potentially bad practices like

cramming or overbilling. things that traditionally the f.c.c. has done as the agency that is protecting consumers gainst bad practices. the reason why many experts believe this bill would result in that happening is because there is no definition of rate regulation. this is' none. and the burden -- there is none. and the burden on legislators when we propose something is to be clear and specific to what it is that's being proposed. and there is no definition whatsoever in this bill about rate regulation. this bill is founded on an apprehension that something bad will happen, but it depiffs an undefined answer to -- but it fiffs an undefined answer to -- but it gives an undefined answer to it. you have a bill that's playing fear on the unknown. my preference would be for us

to not pass this bill, not endanger the authority of the f.c.c. to take steps that help consumers in your district and in my district and to focus where we should be focusing, in my view, on steps we can take to improve broadband access and speeds, particularly for rural areas, rural vermonters. there's a common goal that we have on our committee to try to get the broadband out and deployed at higher speeds in all of our areas, particularly the rural areas that are in jeopardy. so i would urge my colleagues to vote no and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the time of the gentleman from vermont has expired. the gentleman from oregon is recognized. mr. walden: mr. speaker, before i yield to my colleague, mr. shimkus, i'd like to point out for the record on page 4 of the bill, h.r. 2666, is -- on line 7 is a definition of broadband

internet access service. we also have definitions of rate, we have definitions of regulation all spelled out in the bill and very specific to the issue of cramming and illegal actions on truth in billing and all, those are also called for in the bill. he may be looking at an old draft of the bill or something, but it's not the legislation before us. we do define what rate regulation is. we do make sure the f.c.c. part 64, to enforce title 7. it's lines 18-20 of the bill. those things were addressed in the legislation that's now before the house. with that, mr. chairman, i recognize mr. shimkus for two minutes. the chair: the gentleman from illinois is recognized for two minutes. mr. shimkus: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend, mr. chairman. the chair: without objection,

so ordered. mr. shimkus: thank you, mr. chairman. it actually was great to follow my colleague from vermont who's a thoughtful individual. raises always good questions and really is open to debate. nd he stumbles on the truth in this. this does have an issue of net neutrality and our problem has always been, we now have a federal agency imposing what there was no need or desire by many of us believe to fix. and so now, now we're trying to make sure this federal agency doesn't kill the goose that laid the golden egg, right? there is a fear. he was correct in also saying there is a fear. so how do you ease that fear? you enshrine into law the promises made by the administration and by the chairman of the f.c.c.. you take away the fear. it's not like, well, maybe,

this is what he said but maybe he'll do this. just codify it. then we know what the law is. then everyone who gets -- brings it to litigation says here's a black and white law. of course we also have trouble with the courts. we would hope the courts would read the black and white language of the law and then rule that way, but all we're troig to do is -- trying to do is trust but verify. because what we -- what we see is that the net neutrality debate was a fix seeking a problem. there was no problem. sight can stand in our and say we haven't advanced by this new technological age and that we need more government to help cause it to flourish more.

and so we are afraid of a federal agency. we are afraid that the f.c.c. has gone too far. we need to shrine this into law. everybody knows the ground rules, and that's all my colleague, mr. kinzinger, is trying to do and i ask my colleagues to support it and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentlewoman from california is recognized. ms. eshoo: mr. speaker, i'll reserve. the chair: the gentlewoman from california reserves the balance of her time. the gentleman from oregon is recognized. mr. walden: mr. chairman, can i get an update on time remaining on each side? the chair: the gentleman from oregon has 13 minutes remaining. the gentlewoman from california has 16 1/2 minutes remaining. mr. walden: thank you, mr. chairman. with that i yield a minute to the distinguished gentleman from north dakota, who has an incredible background in rate regulation and the commission there and is a terrific member of our subcommittee, mr. cramer. the chair: the gentleman from north dakota is recognized for one minute. mr. cramer: thank you, mr. chairman. mr. chairman, as the chairman

said, i served 10 years as a title 2 rate regulator on the north dakota commission. i know what rate regulation looks like and the internet is not an appropriate vehicle or medium for this type of regulation. the internet is not a monopoly telephone company. it is not a monopoly electric or gas utility. the internet is a dynamic, competitive innovator and even the threat of this type of regulation stiffles that innovation and we don't want that to happen. i want to address the amendment that was referred to by the ranking member of the subcommittee who i have great respect for, but she referred to the term permanent fore barnes. that -- forbearance. that is a contradiction in terms. it is by definition temporary. he who has the authority to forbear has the authority to un forbear. that's why it was not adequate

to this bill. this bill simply codifies that which the president of the united states and the chairman of the federal communications commission promised, to not regulate rates. if they promise to do it, god bless them, but we don't know that the next chairman and the next president will live up to that promise. this law ensures that that promise is kept by codifying it and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. does the gentlewoman from alifornia continue to reserve? the gentlewoman from california continues to reserve. the gentleman from oregon is recognized. mr. walden: thank you, mr. chairman. with that i'd yield one minute to the gentleman from california, the distinguished majority leader of the united states house of representatives, mr. mccarthy. the chair: the majority leader is recognized. mr. mccarthy: well, i thank the gentleman for yielding. mr. chairman, the biggest goal of the innovation initiative is to bring government into the modern age, making the policies that come out of washington reflect and adapt to the world today.

now, what has shaped our world more in the 21st century than the internet? education, commerce, communication, information, everything in our lives has changed because of the internet. how did the internet become something so important, so useful and so widespread? government left it alone. it expanded to reach and help billions because bureaucrats weren't allowed to micromanage it. you know, i remember hearing this from a.l.o. founder steve case. it was back in 1985. he said, only 3% of the people were online and for an average of just one hour a week. today, the internet has reached about 40% of the world. that's an amazing growth. unfortunately, the freedom that led to this amazing success is that risk. right now it's an open question whether the f.c.c. can regulate

internet rates, and congress needs to clarify that. it has no authority to do so, because if the f.c.c. were to regulate rates, it could harm every american across the country that has a wi-fi connection by imposing artificial restraints on their plans and service options. it would stop needed investment in expanding and improving the internet, and it would block innovation we depend on to create better and faster internet. regulating rates means bureaucrats think they can manage the internet better than the private sector which has already brought fast and affordable connections to millions across the country. w, i know the f.c.c. and president obama promised it wouldn't regulate internet broadband rates from their office in washington and that's a good thing, but that doesn't mean i'm not concerned. i don't know about you, mr. chairman, but after seven years of broken promises, i have a hard time trusting this administration will follow

through. so today we're voting to hold the administration to its word. they promise not to regulate the rates. this legislation bars the f.c.c. from regulating rates. it's as simple as that, and i can't imagine why anyone would object. so i want to thank congressman kinzinger for his work on this legislation, holding the f.c.c. and the obama administration accountable. the innovation initiative is all about giving the american people the freedom to grow and prosper. with this the internet stays a little fiscal year, executive overreach is held back and we leave space for the people to innovate without the federal government trying to control it all. i yield back. the chair: the majority leader yields back. the gentlewoman from california is recognized. ms. eshoo: mr. chairman, does the majority have more speakers? mr. walden: yes, we do. ms. eshoo: then i continue to reserve. the chair: the gentlelady continues to reserve.

the gentleman from oregon is recognized. mr. walden: thank you, mr. chairman. with that i'd recognize another member on our subcommittee, the gentleman from missouri, mr. long, for a minute. the chair: the gentleman from missouri is recognized for one minute. mr. long: i thank the gentleman for yielding, and, mr. speaker, you don't need a ph.d. from m.i.t. to understand what's going on here. despite president obama and federal communications commission commission chairman wheeler's past promise not to regulate, retail rates of internet service providers, the chairman announced last week that the f.c.c. will start a new regulatory framework for the evolving business data market and told other house and energy committee members last month that the f.c.c. should have the authority to regulate broadband rates. today, service providers -- today, service provided over modern broadband facilities to customers are unregulated. it's a vibrant market where broadband compete vigorously

for customers. if the administration gets in their way, the f.c.c. will reverse course, price regulate business services and create disincentives for further investment and deployment of high speed fiber networks throughout the nation. these burdens would harm investments, stifle innovation and cost tens of thousands of jobs. mr. speaker, our economy and american workers cannot afford the impact. i urge my colleagues to join me and support this crucial bill, and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. does the gentlewoman continue to reserve, the gentlewoman from california? mr. walden: do you have more speakers? -- ms. eshoo: do you have more speakers? mr. walden: oh, yes. the chair: the gentlewoman from california continues to reserve. mr. walden: i yield to the gentleman from louisiana, mr. scalise, i recognize for a minute. the chair: the gentleman from louisiana is recognized.

mr. scalise: thank you, mr. chairman. thank you to chairman walden and i want to thank my colleague, congressman kinzinger for his leadership on bringing this bill. we want to continue the great innovation we've seen from the technology industry. it's not because government sat there and regulated every aspect of what they do. it's because government frankly hasn't figured out how to regulate because the industry moves so fast and i think that's been a good thing and it's shown if you allow an industry to go out there and invest private money and create great new technologies, great new projects, you look at the development deployment of broadband, it's literally changing people's lives for the good. it's allowed america to be a great technological leader. when you see the threat of the f.c.c. setting rates, regulating broadband, it will send a chilling effect that will not only kill that investment, slow down the ability and the growth that

we've seen that have been so evolutionary in this country, but it will kill jobs in this country. we need to stop the threat of the f.c.c. being able to set rates in a way that can slow down that growth. we've seen such tremendous growth in the technology industry by the government not being in this arena. what congressman kinzinger is doing for this bill protects taxpayers and innovation we need in this country. i urge adoption of this bill and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from oregon reserves. the gentlewoman from california. ms. eshoo: i continue to reserve, mr. speaker. the chair: the gentlewoman from california reserves. the gentleman from oregon. mr. walden: i recognize the gentleman from florida, another member of our committee, mr. bilirakis, for a minute. the chair: the gentleman from florida is recognized for a minute. mr. bilirakis: thank you. i rise in support of h.r. 2666, the no rate regulation of broadband internet access act, which will prohibit the f.c.c. from regulating the rates

charged for broadband internet access service. this bill will help prevent further f.c.c. overreach, save tens of thousands of jobs, keep rates affordable for consumers and provide certainty for the future of internet broadband regulation. for the last year and a half, the f.c.c. insisted it would not regulate broadband internet rates. that changed last month when chairman wheeler reversed course and contradicted all testimony on the f.c.c.'s intent to regulate late rates. many of our local businesses and organizations would suffer from further f.c.c. overreach. many already suffer from the uncertainty and vague new legal standards imposed by the f.c.c. regulating rates before and even after they are issued would further infuse the worst government meddling into a market that should remain nimble and competitive. i thank congressman kinzinger

for his excellent and timely work on this bill. i urge my colleagues to support h.r. 2666. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from oregon reserves. the gentlewoman from california. ms. eshoo: continue to reserve. the chair: the gentlewoman from california reserves. the gentleman from oregon. mr. walden: with that i yield one minute to a gentleman who cares deeply about this issue, that is mr. carter from georgia. the chair: the gentleman from georgia is recognized. mr. carter: mr. speaker, i rise today to express my support of h.r. 2666. in 2015 the f.c.c. reclassified internet service providers as title 2 common carriers, giving themselves the ability to regulate internet rates and user privacy. the administration has promised this new agency power would not be used to regulate broadband rates. however, f.c.c. chairman tom wheeler has admitted that the f.c.c. should have the authority to do so. this regulatory uncertainty is why this bill is needed. h.r. 2666 would prohibit the

f.c.c. from regulating rates charged for broadband internet access, holding the administration to the promise they made to american consumers. preventing government interference with broadband retail rates would give smaller providers greater confidence when making investments. particularly those that would increase internet access in rural and small communities. i urge my colleagues to help prevent government micromanagement of the internet access by supporting h.r. 2666. thank you, mr. speaker. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from oregon reserves. the gentleman from oregon. mr. walden: mr. chairman, we had one other we thought was coming but he has not arrived. i don't know if the gentlelady wants to proceed. ms. eshoo: i believe we have someone that has arrived. i would be happy to yield two minutes to the gentlewoman from

new york, an important member of the committee, ms. clarke. the chair: the gentlewoman from new york is recognized for two minutes. ms. clarning k4r08 -- i thank our ranking minority member, ms. eshoo, and chairman. mr. speaker, i rise today to rate h.r. 2666, no regulation of broadband internet access act, that will prohibit the f.c.c. from regulating rates from broadband internet access. i agree with the premise behind the bill. the commission should not be setting rates for broadband access. in fact, we have heard from f.c.c. chairman wheeler, he has stated several times, that he does not intend to set rates. like millions of americans who made their voices heard last

year, i support a free and open internet. i do not believe the f.c.c. needs to get into the business of regulating consumer broadband rates. h.r. 2666, however, is overbroad and far-reaching. the unintended consequences of the bill before us would undermine important consumer protections and would threaten a free and open internet. for these reasons i urge my colleagues to oppose the bill before us today. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlewoman yields bafpblgt the gentleman from oregon. mr. walden: mr. chairman, how much time remains on each side? the chair: the gentleman from oregon has seven minutes remaining. and the gentlewoman from california has 15 1/2 minutes remaining. mr. walden: with that i would be happy to yield a minute to the gentleman from georgia, mr. allen. the chair: the gentleman from georgia is recognized for one minute. mr. allen: thank you, mr. chairman. thanks for your work on this important bill. mr. speaker, i rise today in support of h.r. 2666 the no

rate regulation of broadband internet access act. the bill does just that, prohibits the federal communications commission from unnecessarily regulating broadband rates. this legislation ensures that not only the current commission but future commissions do not have the option to regulate broadband internet rates. protecting the free market and encouraging competition and promoting jobs. that's what we need to be all about. plain and simple, un-elected washington bureaucrats at the f.c.c. have set out with another solution in search of a problem. by shifting the classification of broadband internet to be a title 2 common carrier, the f.c.c. is simply reclassifying broadband internet to fall under their rule making purview. this is nothing more than another power grab by the administration to regulate and control yet another strifment it is i--- industry. it is estimated that if rules regulating broadband services are carried out, it could cost

over 43,000 jobs. i think we could all agree, it is not time to gamble with american jobs. when bureaucrats in washington play the regulation game, no one wins. i'm a proud co-sponsor of h.r. 2666 and encourage my colleagues to join me in support of this legislation. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from oregon reserves. the gentlewoman from california. ms. eshoo: mr. chairman, i have no further requests for time. i'm prepared to close. the chair: the gentlewoman is recognized. ms. eshoo: thank you, mr. chairman. this has been an interesting discussion on the floor this morning. for people that are tuned in, i think that i want to stay away om federal talk, telecommunications talk, governmentese. what this debate is all about is the internet. clear difference

between how the democrats view the internet and how to protect its openness and its accessibility, and that rests in net neutrality. not a very sexy term, but what it means is is that no i.s.p. can get in the way of the consumer. people want to -- all you have to do is look in your purse or in your pocket, and what you take out and the contents that you view, and all of the -- whatever the internet carries, no company can get in the way of that. to chop it up, to slow it down, to speed it up, to charge more. now, our republican colleagues have fought mightily, and i alute them with their mightily launched campaign.

that they don't believe in that. and that's really what's underneath this. they talk about federal bureaucracies. they don't like that. they talk about bureaucrats, they don't like them. they talk about the president. they don't like him. but really what's at the heart of all of this is that we believe in that open, accessible internet, we do not believe that the executive branch, in this case the f.c.c., should be able to regulate broadband rates. we have said so. we have said so time and again. the gentleman from north dakota objected to my amendment. he said that there was an oxymoron. our amendment codified, codified, no one else codified. we offered codification in the

law that future, not only this f.c.c. commission, but all future commissions, all future chairmen, cannot exact rate regulation. i don't know what needs to be done in order to get to yes around here. and it's curious to me that all of the speakers on the other side never referenced what we put on the table. that there is agreement. so really what this bill, this bill goes beyond that. and that's what we object to. there is not one consumer organization in our country that supports what the majority is doing. we stand with consumers. they need a cop on the beat. we don't need rate regulation of the -- of broadband, but the f.c.c., just the way other agencies are supposed to look after the best interest of the

american people. in fact, in the communications act, the public interest is stated over 100 times. we believe in that. the majority has gone too far with this bill. and it can hurt small businesses. it will hurt consumers. and that's where we draw the line. so, mr. chairman, for all of these reasons i urge my colleagues to vote no on 2666. it goes too far. we were willing to meet and join hands and have something sail through the house. i think it would have in the other body as well. and that is that there be no rate regulation of broadband and the internet. but that wasn't -- i don't know, maybe i think the majority was shocked that we agreeed with their talking

point. we are serious about it. we offered a solution to it. that was rejected not once but twice. very disappointing. so for all of these reasons and what my colleagues stated on this side in the magnificent statements that they made i would urge the house to reject this legislation because it goes well beyond its stated intent. with that i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlewoman yields back. the gentleman from oregon. mr. walden: thank you, mr. chairman. i do appreciate the comments of my friend and i consider her a good friend. we worked together on a lot of issues successfully and found common ground time and again. then there are days like today where we just see things differently and perhaps read them differently. that is what democracy is, after all, all about. competing ideas, coming to an open marketplace where we can have an up or down vote by the people's representatives. let me talk about a couple of things, mr. chair. first of all the issue of net neutrality itself.

as my friend from california knows, i put together a draft bill in january of 2015. nearly a year and a half ago now. that bill said no blocking. no paid prioritization. no throttling. and required transparency. the core principles of an open internet order. for all those things my colleagues on this side of the aisle are for all those things. the door remains open for democrats to join us in sponsoring that legislation. we look forward to that, hopefully going forward, but we couldn't reach agreement on those very clear positions. my colleague said, gee, they are for not having federal communications commission regulate rates for broadband internet access service. i think that's an accurate description of what you said you were for. let me go to page three of the bill and just simply read section 6 -- from line six, section 2. regulation of broadband rates prohibited. line seven, notwithstanding any other provision of the law,

federal communications commission may not regulate the rates charged for broadband internet service -- internet access service. that's what this bill does. now, here's where people may get a little confused. because on the one hand we say no tariffing. that means no setting of the rates ahead of time. we agree on that's a bad idea. you have heard that from both sides of the aisle here. but see the door that remains cracked open is the one they refuse to close. so the chilling winter air of regulatory overreach blows through that crack in the door because if you don't close the ability of the agency to come in after the fact and say, what you did on your rates we no longer think is correct, then you have after the fact rate regulation, which is even more uncertain than up front tariffing. up front setting the rates.

that is what we find ourselves in disagreement with my friends across the identical -- aisle. they are willing to say no tariffing in advance, but they are not willing to close the door that allows the chilly air that will freeze out innovation . a post-action regulation from occurring. and having been in small business for 20-plus years early in my life and the radio business, i know what regulation is. i know what a public file is. i actually kept them. did all these things at our radio station. can i not imagine after the fact my regulator could come back and say you know those ads you sold to the local car dearly, we people in america deciding

what you can and can't do. can do. mommy can, daddy can, is it ok after the fact? this is the new environment when you treat the internet like an old black dial-up phone and that's what chairman wheeler decided to do. they lost their independence and has gone down the path saying the internet is like an old phone uhle line and you

heard my friend, mr. cramer, who was in the rate regulation business. he said the internet, it's not appropriate to regulate it as an old common carrier, like a monopoly because the internet is not a monopoly. we want competition which we know drives down people. when you have three people in america wanting to set the tes after the fact which was what would happen, they get to make the call, not consumers who say, you know, i kind of like that ben john thing. that's new and innovative. the chairman said, yeah, we let that go. we think that's ok. ah, that's the point. the chairman got to say we think that's ok. prior to title 2 regulation, the chairman didn't have a say in that. the marketplace did and the consumers could say, i don't like that, so i'm going to that carrier. another say, i'll offer you

this. now it's going to get second guessed by a government, that will get more regulatory in its scope and scheme. finally, let me state, the argument raised early whier that somehow consumers could be hurt by truth in billing fraud, paid prioritization, we specifically address those in the bill that came to the floor. we listened to our colleagues. we listened to those who testified. we made changes in the bill. we didn't do everything that everybody wanted because this is a compromised process and it is a good piece of legislation that protects consumers, encourages innovation and does what our constituents want us to do, draw clear statutory lines that agencies have to follow, not devolve all the authority to them. with that, mr. chairman, i urge passage of h.r. 2666. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. all time for general debate has expired. pursuant to the rule, the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the committee on energy and commerce shall be considered as an original bill under the five-minute rule and shall be

considered as read. no amendment to the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be in order except those printed in house report 114- 490. each such -- 490. such each amendment may be offered by a member designated in the report, shall be considered as read and shall be debatable for the time specified in the report equally divided by proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2016] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> they approved the bill. the measure prohibits the f.c.c. from regulating internet rates. house majority leader has said will take up several bills to the i.r.s. and taxpayers' rates on monday when they return at noon iran. house republicans are reworking the bill to address puerto rico's debt crisis and no time line for action. members emerged sounding optimistic about the state of the bill but clear that there are changes in the works.

house republicans were forced to meet to discuss the bill after a canceled markup session. a central challenge of refining . e bill to calm those donald trump holds a campaign rally later today in hartford, connecticut. holding its primary on tuesday april 26 and watch the trump rally live at 7:00 eastern here on c-span. our live coverage of the presidential race continues tuesday night for the new york state primary. join us for results. taking you on the road to the hite house on c-span, c-span radio and c-span.org.

>> madam president, we give 72 of our delegate votes to the next president of the united states. >> last night the three republican candidates appeared at a party fundraiser in new york city. you will hear from donald trump, ohn kasich and ted cruz. cheers and applause]

mr. trump: thank you everybody. great to be back in new york, i will say that. great to be back. what a crowd. you know, i thought would do something a little different. when ed called me a few months ago and said we would love for you to speak. i said where are you going to have it? he said at the grand hyatt. i said i would love to speak there because i built the hotel. it was a successful deal and it was towards the end of the 1970's and the market was horrible and this area for those of you like my good friend, everybody would say this was a crazy deal and i shouldn't have done it and i said i have to do it. and my father, who was in brooklyn and queens said son, we

don't know anything about manhattan. don't do it. i said pop, i want to be in manhattan. i agree the location is terrible. you had to see the people. that was one i have to say republicans for gerald ford said to new york, drop dead. drop dead. that was a killer. not a good time for our city. it was a bad time for our city, but it was something that was -- we had to do something because we love new york. we love new york and that was probably maybe the worst of the worst. but i just wanted to do it. i love the building and the potential of the building. built the commodore hotel in 1909 and it was a mess. and they had a spa and it was called relaxation plus. and nobody ever got into what the plus meant. you don't want to know.

[laughter] mr. trump: every retail center in the building was failing. but relaxation plus was making an absolute fortune and i couldn't get them out. and i asked about all sorts of things. i shouldn't say this too loud because i will ridiculed by the conservatives, of which i am one. i said what about condemnation? everybody happy i didn't do that. i ended up getting them out and brought the building down to its steel except for the details on a couple of the ceilings because -- this is one of the rooms here. the detail of the ballroom and the detail of the rooms outside and trying to save those cost a fortune because when the building was brought to the steel we had to put canvass over it and it wasn't an easy situation. and i got it built and as we

were opening, the market changed because the city was doing so badly and that was the worst that the city had been economically. people and companies were leaving in droves and it was something of a miracle. the area. i opened the building to tremendous fanfare and the area became special. and i called it a park avenue address. i called it park avenue. it's on the park avenue ramp. might not be pure park. i had a choice of lexington avenue, 42nd street or park avenue. and guess what? i chose park avenue. that wasn't bad. i had that in columbus circle. i did the big hotel, trump international and been a great success and we're in the circle. and columbus circle didn't have a good name, but it was also on central park west, but called 7

columbus circle. and a little known fact, and when we talk about government and rules and regulations, a little known fact when you have an address in new york, it's very, very hard, so hard to change. so when you have a building that is 7 columbus circle, you have to go through the united states government because of the mail service and u.s. mail and all of the different problems. so it was 7 columbus and i stripped that one down. we built a tremendous building. i said yame not doing it and i put a big campaign in washington and got it changed to number 1 central park west. and the day i got that changed, the building was worth seven times worth more than i paid for it. this has been an amazing event thrks building. i think of it because when i did the building, everybody said don't do it. can't be done.

never going to happen. bad area, bad location, tremendous crime. the city's dying and the city was dying. it wasn't just like not doing well, but the city was dead. and i said to a friend of mine who was in a good business and he became a friend and i said i'm in the real estate business in new york and he said, that's too bad. but it turned out to be a great business and turned out to be a great success as a hotel and hyatt was my partner and we did a good job and from the time it opened, it was amazing, from the day it opened that's the way the market changed. i bought the tallest building in downtown manhattan and bought it literally during the depression of the early 1990's and paid very little for it. nobody wanted it and when it

opened, it was like the world changed and became a tremendously successful building, which i still have. but with this one in particular, when i did it, people didn't want it. especially my father. my father was the man who taught me the most and loaned me a small amount of money and built it into a great, great company and this became so successful and he said wow! paid him back the money. we did other things, we did the convention center. i got the state and city to build and to this day and going to build that one in the water and had environmental aprovals. even then they had environmental aprovals. and they were in the wrong location. carey and he rnor was a great problem solver and

wasting -- and couldn't get approval. we had a man and he was totally against what i was doing and he was wanting to build it in one location. you had to go through hell's kitchen and west side highway, ramps over the highway and it was being built into the hudson river. other than that, it was a wonderful site. this guy, i won't mention his name, richard ravitz. he was so intent on building it and i was arguing with him and fighting. and i said i have options to the west side railroad yards and i n it with the penn central railroad. the site is great. we went up to governor carey and he appointed this commission to

build the convention center and they were just about starting. d i sat down with governor carey and his staff and he said richard, you make the case for your site. and made the case for 20 minutes and every time he talked it was wrong, wrong, wrong. he said donald, will you make the case. it took me five minutes. totally changed gears. got it, got the approvals. and to this day great. so we're happy about it. [applause] mr. trump: theb i built many other build -- then i built many other buildings across the city. this was my first. the grand hyatt hotel. and seven years the city couldn't fix an ice skating rink. i became more famous because of

that rink. they couldn't guild it for seven years and i had my daughter -- d anybody hear of ivanka and kept saying, daddy, daddy can't we go ice skating? i went down and looked and saw 400 men, in those cases it was men, today you have men and women as construction people, 400 men sitting in the rink not looking and i came back half an hour later and still weren't working. taking lunch breaks many, many times a day. and they went out and got from miami beach an expert on ice. but they meant refrigerators, not to make ice. i hope this is an interesting story. who the hell wants to talk about politics all the time. politics gets a little boring. but what happened is i went to

koch.yor and i said, ed it's seven years now and eight, a gas thatd they use goes through copper tubing. four inches apart and it was laid -- this massive rink, 90,000 square rink. big office floors times three. i have run it for many years. it has been a tremendous place. but they had the freeon and four inches, miles of it and every time they put the beautiful copper down, every single time, the next night, people would steel it. kept putting it down, kept getting it stolen. until the police force decided to go to lunch, it was all stolen. they were losing millions of

dollars, $22 million. and i went to see ed koch. and then i went to see some of the newspapers and editorial boards. i said i will do it in six months to a year and you are going to be years and years and don't know what they are doing and spending a fortune. i went to two editorial boards, "new york times" and the other one i won't say because i don't like -- but i do like the "new york post." and they did editorials. you have to let him do it. i took over the project and a lot of people said it was built. it wasn't built. the concrete was poured. it was nine inches higher on one side than the other side. when you poured the water, you had a big swimming pool. and the water was so deep you couldn't freeze it.

i had to rip out the entire slab and it was a foot and a half thick. so we ripped it and i finished it in four months and i said if it costs more than $2 million -- they studied this at wharton school and harvard because it is the difference between the private sector and public sector. to this day, it's a great case study. i went in and did a job like you wouldn't believe. we took out that massive slab of concrete and leveled it out. but most importantly, i said to the people that's with the piping.nd losing copper miami, i don't want ice from miami. i wanted a part owner who of the canadiens.

do you how i can get ice? he said mr. trump, five miles of this piping, if there is a -- it's gas, if there is a little pin hole in five miles, you don't want that. you want rubber hose and in the water, you put salt so it doesn't freeze. i said boy, that sounds good. and i went out and bought it for a tiny amount of money. rubber hose every four inches. they call it brian. and we did the rubber hose. nobody wanted it. we didn't need security. nobody sold the rubber hose. and we opened it up and most amazing thing. we tested and wasn't a leak in the whole thing.

6.2 miles of rubber hose. now what happens is that we put the concrete over. we had concrete trucks lined up to harlem. all of my construction friends in that corner, they have the worst seats, construction guys usually have the best seats. they understand what we are talking about, the city used to pour 10 feet come back and pour another 10 feet. you want it contiguous. but all the way back to harlem, we had trucks. and the most amazing thing, it took two days to pour the slab. we made it six inches and two inches on top of this slab and it was a perfect slab. to this day, it's perfect. put the water on top. i said try it. i said try it and in two hours we had the most beautiful ice

st like the montreal canadiens. [applause] mr. trump: i have had a lot of fun with new york and did ferry job in the bronx, point. there they are. you know what i'm talking about. ferry point was under construction for 26 years. 26 years. it ended up costing hundreds of millions of dollars, nobody knows what the price is. and michael bloomberg said could you look at this. it's been a disaster. and he was embarrassed. and it's a very golf project designed by jack nicklaus. but i got it built in one year and opened today and greatly successful. and by the way, and for peanuts. when i say -- am i right?

that's the woman right there. am i right? thank you, darling. i don't know who the hell she is. she's not a protestor, she's on my side. i tell you what. you look outside, these are paid protestors, folks. they have the most beautiful signs from a factory. if you want information on a sign, call this number. if they're real protestors, we want those signs made in the basement. we have done so many jobs since then. it's an amazing city. we have to be careful. our mayor has to be careful, because he can blow it very quickly. not doing good. better be careful, mr. mayor, but we have a city that outlasts everybody and going to outlast

us. one of the great, great cities of the world and it's called new york city. [cheers and applause] mr. trump: i think while i'm at at it and proud of so many of projects. d my just so many great experiences from new york. we can do the same thing with our country. we can bring these jobs in under budget instead of 20 times budget. we need infrastructure. we need more military. our military is being diss mated. we have to take care of our vets and do so many things. we can do it, same thing, ice skating rinks and ferry point. it's all the same thing. doing the pennsylvania on hoe pennsylvania avenue. the g.s.a., total professionals,

the most competitively bid job. everybody wanted it. the old post office. and we got it. we got it because our concept was great and our financial statement is great. and now it's under budget and ahead of schedule and going to open in september, substantially more than a year ahead of schedule and we'll have it opened in september of this year as opposed to two years from then. you'll join n -- me. i will be in the white house and you can stay in the hotel, ok? [cheers and applause] mr. trump: one of the reporters recently asked me, they said, mr. trump, if you win the presidency, will you be staying in your new hotel or the white house? i said i'll take the white house. i want to talk about new york values because it's become a big

thing. i wrote a few things down, but it's just one of those things. i talked tonight about new york values that we all, many of us, that we all know so well. the values that make us love this state, which has been a symbol of american strength throughout the world, no matter where you go, they love new york. you can be from lots of other places and if you want to see somebody, you say when are you coming to new york? there is nothing like it. when we talk about values, what do we see in new york values? we see a really, incredible, when you look at september 11 especially, new york police and new york firefighters, incredible. [applause] mr. trump: we see our unbelieve and they keep those trains and buses going and everything else, but our transit workers and what

they went through on september 11 was incredible. [applause] mr. trump: we see families playing in central park. thousands and thousands of families with their children, some without children, some together, some not together, but we see people in central park and people playing in central park. we see restaurant workers all factory city, delis and workers in upstate new york and those factories are rapidly leaving our state and we can't let that happen. and we have a whole fabric of our community. so what are new york values? because people are disputing -- i'm not disputing and most people who know new york and what we have done and look at what happened after september 11, the jobs that this city has done and the jobs is beyond what

anyone has ever seen. and you say, what are new york values? number one, honesty and straight talking. honesty -- you better believe it. it's a work ethic. hardworking people. it's about families. new york, believe it, it's about family. so important. it's the energy to get things done, big energy. if jeb bush came here, i'm telling you he would have much more energy than he has right now. he should move to new york, right? we are builders. we make things happen, it's so important. we make things happen. and it's courage and community service, because there is tremendous community service. new york values were on display for all to see in the aftermath of 9/11 that struck at the heart of our city and our nation.

in our darkest moments as a city, we showed the world the very, very best in terms of bravery and heart and soul that we have in america. [applause] the firefighters and first responders and the police officers and the port authority workers who ran up those stairs, those are new york values and those are new yorker values. [someone screaming in background. mr. trump: is she serious. the new york city chaplain who died and an amazing guy that i knew a little bit and who rudy knew very well but look at

father judge and i tell you what, he was some guy and ran up there to pray and he knew what was going to happen and he died and he died praying and taking care of people and he was an amazing guy. the people in the towers that helped rescue each other, those are those of new york values. the restaurants and local businesses who kept their shops open to help everybody during this incredible time, those are new york values. everyone who helped clear the rubble and the rescue, the injured, those are new york values. every small act of kindness, every great act of courage of which there was so many, there has never been anything like this. this was the greatest and most horrific attack in our country, far greater than pearl harbor because the attack was on civilians. but those are new york values.

and these are the values that we need to make america great again. we need these values to bring america together again and to heal america's wounds again. so i just want to tell you that i am so proud to be with you tonight. i'm so proud to be discussing all sorts of topics, but most importantly new york values, because no matter where you go anywhere in the world, they talk in a most positive tone about what all of us have done. ladies and gentlemen, have a great dinner and we are going to have an amazing election coming up. we are having some really great primaries. it's about a lot of fun. it wasn't supposed to be this way. i have been dealing with politicians all my life. it has been a great experience.

i'm millions of votes ahead of my closest rival. they talk delegates. i happen to be hundreds of delegates ahead, too. to me, it's so important, millions of votes ahead. and we have -- thank you. thank you. millions of votes, 22 states and it started, by the way, with new hampshire. we went down to south carolina. states i wasn't supposed to win and ended up winning in a landslide, alabama, arkansas, kentucky -- i may move to the south if new york doesn't treat us well. the south has been so great to me. and then we went to florida, it's my second home. this is my first home. florida is my second home and did so unbelievably. won by 20 points and an absolute

landslide and we have something happening. the next four, five weeks are going to be excited. thank you. thank you. and we start on tuesday, so big. and you know the interesting thing is with all the primaries we have been through, years and years and years of primary. not important by the time they get to new york. new york is important. so important. like new york should be so important and i see what's happening and i see the polls and i'm so honored because the people who know me best are the people from new york. when i'm up 42 points. i said 42 points that's a lot. up by 42 and 44 points in the newest polls. those are the people who know me best. we will have an exciting next four, five weeks. great time in cleveland. hopefully not a good a time but

hopefully solved by the time we get there. [applause] mr. trump: enjoy the hotel and enjoy this great, great city and it's an honor to be with you tonight. thank you very much everybody. thank you. thank you. [applause] >> for some reason, mr. trump feels very much at home here, doesn't he? donald trump, thank you very much for all you did to make new york city great again way back then. thank you. now, our next candidate and next

speaker is really a very special, really very special individual. and i would like to tell you how special he is. he has said that he will speak while they are putting the food on the table and while you're eating. that's something you can applaud for. so servers start putting food on the table and i'm going to introduce governor john kasich of ohio. he was elected in 2010 and re-elected in 2014 with 64% of the votes. as governor, he has turned an $8 billion shortfall into a $2 billion surplus and cut taxes and made ohio one of the top job creating states in the nation. prior to his election, he worked in the private sector and a host on fox news and had 18-year

career as a member of congress where he was chairman of a budget committee that actually balanced the federal budget. please join me in giving a warm welcome to governor john kasich of ohio! [cheers and applause] governor kasich: thank you. what a dinner and they are going to serve -- i thought it would be better to move the program

along. governor kasich: how i feel about new york values, i have eaten my entire way across the state of new york and eaten every bit of food that there is and the folks of new york will forgive for that big mistake when i had a scalding piece of pizza and touched the pizza pie with it but i know how to eat pizza. let me tell you how i feel about this town. you know, there's nothing more important to you than your wife and your kids, for me. and my wife and i love to come to new york and i have twin daughters and maybe you saw them on anderson cooper, they did a

great job, my children and my wife. they stole the show. my 16-year-old daughters, when we go on a special visit when dad takes them on a trip, i bring them to new york city. and the reason why i come here is because frankly you are so alive when you are in new york and the fact is, you don't want to sleep when you are in new york. and the reason you don't want to sleep is because you are afraid you are going to miss something and things that are always happening that is so fantastic. it just makes you alive. i have had a great time being here. you know as a candidate for president of the united states, you know, what's so amazing to me is that my father carried mail on his back, he delivered mail to our home for 29 years. and my father was the kind of a guy that knew everything that was going on in the neighborhood.

and when the sundays scored a touchdowns, and when the daughters sang a solo, he would celebrate. but if they lost somebody, he would cry in their homes. he kept the neighborhood and the community together. his father was a coal miner. and my grandfather would go down in the coal mine and he would work all day long. and he would bring his haul up at the end pped of the day and felt -- end of the day and felt he would get a decent pay, they id you brought too much peat and not enough coal. you know who he complained to? he couldn't complain to anybody because no one cared. my mother's mother could barely speak english. she was an immigrant and my mother was one of four kids.

three of them never got out of the eighth grade, but my mother was a person who got her high school degree by walking over a foot bridge across a railroad track to try to make something of herself. and my mother and father gave me these great values. my father was a democrat all his lifetime. my mother became a republican later in life. the town where i grew up, if the wind blew the wrong way, people found themselves out of work. so you should know that i'm a candidate for president that really understands the angst yites -- angst yits of people who limb in this country because i have d.n.a. from a blue collar worker. we have to think about -- you know, there are angst yites out out there. gstities

people are concerned they are not getting wage increases, people are upset and told if you give your money to a bank, you are going to get paid and the bank uses your money and it's called interest. but i'll tell you, i think mom and dad's greatest worry beyond their own job is the fact that their sons and daughters have gone on to get education, more education, for everybody sitting in this room, you remember that your mother and father always said, you need more education. so these kids go off to college and ring up the debt and they are hopeful about the future and we find many of them living still at home with their parents. greatest has created

anxiety. the ladge of wages, the fact that they are not getting a fair shake. we hear politicians talk about it, but i grew up with it. if the wind blew the wrong way, people found themselves out of work. and i have come to know that the most important thing that a public official can do is to create economic growth and prosperity in the neighborhoods. now, folks -- [applause] governor kasich: let me say a couple things about this anxiety and something we need to pay close attention to in this election season. you really have two paths. when you go into a room and i have been doing it all across the country and you realize people's anxieties and you come to understand, you have two

choices. you can either go into that room and tell them how bad everything is. you can tell them that the country's in decline. you can tell them that they have been ripped off. you can feed on their anxiety and cause anger and division, paranoia and even at times hatred or walk into that same room and you can recognize the struggles and the problems and the anxieties that people have and talk to them about how we solve those problems, about how there are solutions that can give them hope, that can improve their lives and the lives of their children. we can do that by taking a positive approach. and i have to suggest to all of you, when we live in the dark, when we practice politics in the dark, over time, people don't like it. people want to know there are solutions. you know, over the course of this campaign, there were many

people that said why is it kasich keeps talking about what he used to do. and i'm going to tell you why. when the public looks at a politician whose lips are moving, they figure that politician is lying. and i'm a citizen myself. and when people come to tell me what they want to do and want to be elected, i say what have you done in your life? how do i know you can deliver the goods. i want to take a second to tell you that as a public official -- and i have been in politics for a very long time. my mind's eye is helping those people where i grew up or the people that live in brooklyn or the people that live in queens. you see, people are searching for a fair shake and want to know when they get a promise that promise can be kept. i got to be ar congressman at

the age of 30. i beat an incumbent democrat and snob wanted to appear with ronald reagan in 1982 but i did and got to spend more time with him. shambles. was a reagan no, ma'amics had not kicked in. and i spent 18 years of my career on national security issues and six years into my term in congress, i got on the budget committee and i figured something out as a very young man. e have $19 trillion in debt, $225 billion goes to pay for interest. think about taking $100 billion and invest it in solving the problems of alzheimer's did he men ta or pan createic disease and when i go to college

campuses, i told them to look at the rising debt because we have a debt clock that shows it's over $19 trillion. when the debt goes up, your opportunity as a job goes down and when it comes down. if you think about bernie and hillary and by the time they are giving away free stuff, the debt will be at $30 trillion and nobody will get a job. that's why we have to stop them. [applause] governor kasich: well, i fought with my own party. spent 10 years in my life to get us to a balanced budget. and in the end of the day, we did. i negotiated the agreement with the clinton administration. we had a balanced budget. we paid down half a trillion dollars of the national debt and cut taxes on capital gains and the economy was growing and no

discussion of income inequality or no rising wages because the country was working because we used a formula to cut taxes and balance the budget which gave confidence to the job creators in this country. [applause] governor kasich: and then i left washington. i went out in the private sector to learn about how it really works. and then i decided i needed to run for governor. and i got elected at exactly the right time. because our state couldn't get much worse. we had an $8 billion, 20% of our operating budget was in the hole. we lost 350,000 jobs. the state was polarized and lost hope. ut i applied that old formula, commonsense regulations, lower taxes on business and individuals who help small businesses particularly to have incentives to grow and a path to

a balanced budget and went from 350,000 lost jobs to a gain of almost 420,000 new jobs. we have cut taxes by $5 billion more than any governor in the country. our wages are going up faster than the national average. and i want you to know that we have left no one behind. we have left no one behind. we don't believe that the mentally ill ought to be sleeping under a bridge or living in a prison. we don't believe that the drug-addicted lives ought to be tossed down the train drain. we want a system for the working poor where a single mom with a couple of kids can get ahead by getting a pay raise rather than losing her child care. let's have a party to get people out of poverty and not be stuck in poverty in this country.

[applause] governor kasich: so i have solutions. but here's what i want you to hear tonight. because of the approach that i have taken, because of my vision going forward of dealing with federal regulations and cutting business taxes and balancing the federal budget, because of the efforts to try to bring people together and remind people that they are americans before republicans and democrats. there have been a series of political polls that have been conducted, i am the only candidate that beats hillary clinton on a consistent basis every single time. every time. [applause] governor kasich: and yesterday, the electoral college had a calculation applied to it and guess what happened? the two candidates who were running at the same time i am got swamped by hillary clinton.

and in that electoral college, i crushed hillary clinton in that survey done yesterday. now, i want to ask you something. [applause] governor kasich: i want to ask you something. if you feed on the negative attitudes of people, you are going to have high negative ratings. try to sell something when people don't like you or trust you or try to sell something when you have a positive message with a record of accomplishment. ladies and gentlemen, i'm just standing back here with the senate president. you know what will happen if we nominate people who have high negatives and cannot beat hillary. we aren't going to lose the white house or the supreme court. i tell you what, there is a very good chance your senate majority leader will be the senate minority leader because we risk losing everything from the white house to the court shoes to the

state house if we don't have a positive, unifying message to this country. that is what we need to do. you see because it's not pie in the sky. it's really about a solid record of pulling this country together, improving its national security reputation and the strength of our military and at the same time rebuilding the economy of the united states of america so that america's greatest legacy which is our children will do better than the america we inherited from our parents can be real and can be realized. i'm about done here, ok. i just want to tell you this. i have enjoyed being all across this state. i will be campaigning here. in fact, i don't know whether you heard, but tonight, governor pataki endorsed me and will be campaigning across this state

and this country for me. and we are going to go to a convention and going to go to a convention and i have been saying it for months and when we get to that convention and when the delegates enter the hall -- because i was there in 1976 and i saw a contested convention. the delegates are going to think about two things, number one, who can win in the fall. this is about who can win the white house and defeat hillary clinton, number one. and number two, because of the important fans those delegates are going to inherit at that convention, they are going to ask themselves, who at the end of the day has the experience and the record and the ability to bring this country together? who can be the best president of the united states and i maintain to you, i'm going to leave cleveland as the nominee. whether or not you believe it, it's going to happen. thank you, new york. i love you.

[cheers and applause] senator cruz: god bless the great state of new york. i'm thrilled to be here with so many friends, so many patriots, so many lovers of liberty. i will admit to you, i haven't built any buildings in new york city. but i have spent my entire life fighting to defend the constitution and the bill of rights. [applause] senator cruz: we are here this evening at a time of crisis for our nation. we are bankrupting our country.

our constitutional rights are under assault each and every day d america has recreeded from leadership and i have a word of hope and encouragement. i want to tell you what is happening all across the state of new york and this nation. people are waking up. i believe this next election will be about three critical issues. obs, freedom and security. let's talk for a minute about jobs. today we have the lowest percentage of americans working of any year since 1977. people are hurting and median wages have stagnated for over a decade. today, we have single moms working two and three part-time jobs, who had their hours forcibly reduced to 28, 29 hours

a week because obamacare kicks in at 30 hours a week. we have truck drivers, steel workers, plumbers and mechanics, machineists and union members who are seeing wages stagnate year after year after year. the cost of living goes up, but their wages don't seem to keep pace. we have young people coming out of school, buried in student loans and scared. what does the future hold for me? will i get a job? what kind of future will i have. and the media tells us over and over again, this is the new normal. everyone here understands that is not the case. the heart of our economy is not washington d.c. the heart of our economy is small businesses all across the

united states of america. [applause] senator cruz: if you want to see the economy take off, very simple, you lift the boot off the federal government off the backs of small businesses. [applause] senator cruz: if i'm elected president, we will repeal every word of obamacare. [applause] senator cruz: we'll pass common sense health reform that makes health insurance personal, affordable and keep government from getting in between us and our doctors. and we will pass a simple flat tax. on monday, it's tax day. many people in this room will be writing very, very large checks. if i'm elected, every one of us will fill out our taxes on a

post card and we will abolish the i.r.s. [cheers and applause] keep in the g to federal regulators, killing jobs all across this country. we are going to stop amnesty, secure the borders, end sanctuary cities and end welfare benefits for those here illegally. and let me tell you what's going to happen when we do all of that, we are going to send millions and millions of high-paying jobs and see jobs coming back from mexico and china and going to see wages rising again for working men and women and see opportunity growing as young people come out of school with two, three, four, five job opportunities. that is what this election is

about. bringing brac the opportunity that your parents and -- bringing back the opportunity that your parents and my parents did. the second critical issue in this issue is freedom. you know, just a few weeks ago with the passing of justice scalia, it underscores the election. our supreme court is balanced 4-4. the next president may appoint one, two, three, even four supreme court justices. if you care about religious liberty, about the freedom of everyone one of us, christian d jew, muslim and agentivity to practice our faith free of government getting in the way, this election is pivotal. if you care about the second amendment, the right to keep and bear arms, this election is pivotal. if you care about preserving

u.s. sovereignty from the international courts and international law and maintaining the authority of we, the people, to decide our laws, this election is pivotal. [applause] senator cruz: and i give you my solemn commitment that every justice i appoint to the supreme court will be a principled constitutionalist who will follow the law, the constitution and will not legislate from the bench. the third critical issue in this election is security. for seven years, we have seen an administration that abandons our friends and allies and shows weakness to our enemy. three years ago, i was at this dinner. if i would have suggested at this dinner three years ago that the elected prime minister of

israel would come to the united states, would address a joint session of congress and he would be boycotted by the president of the united states, the vice president of the united states and every member of the cabinet, that would have been laughed at. that could not possibly be true. surely, we were not living in that environment and yet as i sat on the floor of the house of representatives listening to rime minister netanyahu give a peech that was positively chur hillian, the president, vice president or the cabinet willing to join us. we have a president who insults and ridicules the prime minister of israel. we have a president who celebrates a nuclear deal with iran, that i believe poses the single gravest threat to our national security of anything in

the world. [applause] senator cruz: my opponents in this race, all four of them, pledge to maintain that iranian nuclear deal. one of them says he'll renegotiate it. let me very clear, as president on the very first day in office, will rip to shreds this catastropheic iranian nuclear deal. and if you feel a sense of despair, can we keep america afe after seven years of receding, foreign policy can change the fastest, that in nuary of 1981, this same nation, released the hostages the day ronald reagan was sworn into office. that's the difference a strong commander in chief can make and

that is the difference as president, i will make clear to iran, either they will shut down their nuclear program or we will shut it down for them. new york city is hallowed ground. it is the site of the worst terrorist attack on united states soil. and yet in the 15 years since 9/11, many in washington have forgotten. today when we see an attack, whether in paris, whether in brussels, whether in san bernandino, inevitably president obama goes on national television and refuses to say the words radical islamic terrorism, and insteds lectures the american people on is llamaphobia. i want to be clear come january,

2017, this country will no longer be governed on political correctness and every jihadist on the face of the earth should hashingen to these words. if you wage war against the united states of america, if you seek to murder innocent americans, we are coming to get you. we are not coming to interrogate you. we are not coming to you to read you your rights. we are coming to kill you. [cheers and applause] . the time for weakness and appeasement is over. hitler has shown, history has shown, munich in 1938 has shown that giving in to a homicidal maniac and